Supreme Court of the United States
Budha Ismail Jam, Petitioners v. International Finance Corporation
February 27, 2019586 U.S. 199
Summary
The Court held that the International Organizations Immunities Act’s “same immunity” language refers to the current, restrictive foreign sovereign immunity regime embodied in the FSIA, not the virtually absolute immunity of 1945. Accordingly, the International Finance Corporation is not absolutely immune from suit. Justice Breyer dissented, arguing that the statute should be read statically to preserve the absolute immunity foreign governments enjoyed when the IOIA was enacted.
Holding
- Whether the IOIA’s “same immunity” language refers to the current foreign sovereign immunity regime under the FSIA.. The IOIA’s “same immunity” provision is to be read continuously, tying international organization immunity to the present‑day restrictive foreign sovereign immunity rules of the FSIA.
- Whether the President’s authority to withhold, withdraw, condition, or limit privileges under the IOIA is compatible with the continuous‑equivalence interpretation.. The President’s delegation power is compatible with the continuous‑equivalence reading and permits case‑by‑case modification of immunity without altering the default rule.
Docket 17-1011
Cited authorities
- 42 U.S.C. §§1981
- 42 U.S.C. § 1982
- 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)
- 22 U.S.C. § 288
- 42 U.S.C. §§1981
- 42 U.S.C. § 1982
- CA10
- CA10
Cited by
- Interstate Service Provider, Inc. v. Jordan
- AJ Ruiz Consultoria Empresarial S.A. v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
- House of Providence v. Meyers
- El Omari v. the International Criminal Police Organization - Interpol
- Johnson v. the Kroger Company
- Celesta Bryant v. Michael Rauls
- Jespersen v. Colony Insurance Company
- Jespersen v. Colony Insurance Company