Jam v. International Finance
In brief
The Court overturned the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back, deciding that international organizations get the same protection from lawsuits that foreign governments get today.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-1 · February 27, 2019 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
- What it’s about
- Budha Ismael Jam and other Indian residents sued the International Finance Corporation (IFC) over a project it financed in India. The Supreme Court overturned the D.C.
- Who it affects
- For the IFC, protection from lawsuits is measured under the current Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act standard, not the broader protection foreign governments had in 1945.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Circuit’s ruling (reversed) and sent the case back to that court (remanded), deciding that international organizations have the same immunity (protection from lawsuits) that foreign governments have today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, not the broader protection foreign governments had in 1945.
Budha Ismael Jam was one of the Indian residents who sued the IFC over a project it financed in India.
A 1945 federal law says international organizations get the “same immunity” (protection from lawsuits) as foreign governments.
Question presented
1. Whether the International Organizations Immunities Act-which affords international organizations the "same immunity" from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a (b)- confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11. 2. If not, what are the rules governing the immunity to which international organizations are entitled?
What the Court decided
Holding
The IOIA affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the FSIA. 860 F. 3d 703, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court read the International Organizations Immunities Act’s “same immunity” phrase as referring to the protection foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, not the protection they had in 1945.
The vote
From the opinions
“The majority, resting primarily upon the statute’s language and canons of interpretation, holds that the statute’s reference to “immunity” moves with the times.”
What's next
The case returns to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings under the current Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act standard. The Supreme Court did not finally resolve the residents’ underlying claims.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What did Justice Breyer argue?
- Justice Breyer argued that the 1945 law preserves the broader protection from lawsuits foreign governments had when Congress passed it, including protection from lawsuits arising from commercial activities.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.