Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Oct 31, 2018.
Decided on Feb 27, 2019.

Petitioner: Budha Ismael Jam, et al..
Respondent: International Finance Corporation.

Advocates:

Jeffrey L. Fisher (for petitioners)
Jonathan Y. Ellis (Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States as amicus curiae supporting petitioners)
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. (for respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Budha Ismael Jam and others are Indian fishermen, farmers, and others who live in Gujarat, India. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) is an international organization headquartered in Washington, DC, that provides loans in the developing world to projects that are unable to receive private capital. The IFC loaned $450 million to an Indian company for the construction and operation of the Tata Mundra Plant in Gujarat, India. The loan agreement with the Indian power company included provisions that the company may not cause damage to surrounding communities, and IFC retained supervisory authority and could revoke financial support for the project.

The plant’s construction and operation did cause harm to the surrounding communities, as reported in IFC’s own internal audit, in violation of the agreement. However, the IFC did not take any steps to force the loan recipients into compliance.

The plaintiff fishermen and farmers brought this lawsuit in federal court in DC seeking damages based largely on tort causes of action. They also raised a claim as an alleged third-party beneficiary of the contract between IFC and the power company.

The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, finding that IFC was immune from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) and further that the IFC had not waived its immunity to this suit. The relevant part of IOIA provides that international organizations “shall enjoy the same immunity from suit . . . as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.” 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b). The president of the United States determines whether an organization is entitled to such immunity, and an executive order in 1956 designated the IFC as entitled to the “privileges, exemptions, and immunities” conferred by the statute.

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit affirmed the district court, finding that the IFC is immune under IOIA and that it did not waive immunity for this suit.

Question

Does the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) give international organizations the immunity that foreign governments enjoyed at the time the law was passed, or the immunity that foreign governments have at present, as described in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976?

Conclusion

The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA) affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), not what they enjoyed when the law was passed.

In a 7–1 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the International Finance Corporation, an IOIA international organization, is immune from suit only to the extent that foreign sovereign governments are immune from suit. The Court interpreted the IOIA “same as” language as making international organization immunity and foreign sovereign immunity continuously equivalent. The Court found that this interpretation is bolstered by the “reference canon” of statutory interpretation, which provides that when a statute refers to a general subject, it adopts the law on that subject at the time a question arises, as opposed to when a statute refers to a statute by title, in which case it adopts the law as it existed at the time the statute was enacted.

Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which he gave greater weight to the IOIA’s “history, its context, its purposes, and its consequences” than to canons of statutory interpretation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

[17-1011] Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Supreme Court Oral Arguments