Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Jam v. Int'l Finance Corp.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Jam v. International Finance Corp.
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: October 31, 2018
Decided: February 27, 2019
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded
Vote
7-1
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Stephen Breyer

Jam v. International Finance Corp. is a case concerning whether international organizations can be sued in U.S. courts that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 31, 2018, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.[1][2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Budha Ismael Jam and residents who live in Gujarat, India, brought a suit against the International Finance Corporation (IFC) for damages caused by the construction of a power plant in their community. The IFC, an international organization that provides loans for companies in underdeveloped countries, gave funding to an Indian company to build and operate the Tata Mundra Plant. Jam and others said that the plant caused harm to the water supply, contaminated the air, and killed off fish populations. The IFC’s own internal audit found that Jam’s claims were correct. Jam brought the case to a district court. The court dismissed the case because it found that the IFC was immune from suit. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the ruling.
  • The issue: 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.[3]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • February 27, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 31, 2018: Oral argument
    • May 21, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • January 19, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • August 22, 2017: The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case because it found that the IFC was immune from suit.

    Background

    Budha Ismael Jam and a group of fishermen, farmers, and residents who live in Gujarat, India, brought a suit against the International Finance Corporation (IFC) for damages caused by the construction of a power plant in their community. The IFC, an international organization that provides loans for companies in underdeveloped countries, gave funding to an Indian company to build and operate the Tata Mundra Plant. Jam and others said that the plant caused harm to the water supply, contaminated the air, and killed off fish populations. The IFC’s own internal audit found that Jam’s claims were correct.[5]

    According to Oyez, “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 IFC failed to require the Indian power company to repair the damage caused by the plant.[5]

    Jam brought the case to a district court. The court dismissed the case because it found that the IFC was immune from suit. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld the ruling. Jam appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case on May 21, 2018.[6]

    According to SCOTUSblog, the case "centers on the International Organizations Immunities Act, which gives international organizations the 'same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments.' The justices agreed to decide whether this means that international organizations have the same immunity as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act – which contains an exception from immunity for 'commercial activities.'"[6]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[3]

    Question presented:
    • 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.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[7]

    Transcript

    • Read the oral argument transcript here.

    Outcome

    Decision

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts delivered the 7-1 opinion of the court. The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.[2]

    Opinion

    In his opinion for the court, Chief Justice Roberts, who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch, wrote,

    “ The International Organizations Immunities Act grants international organizations the 'same immunity' from suit 'as is enjoyed by foreign governments' at any given time. Today, that means that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act governs the immunity of international organizations. The International Finance Corporation is therefore not absolutely immune from suit.[8] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion. He wrote,

    “ The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 extends to international organizations 'the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments.' 22 U. S. C. §288a(b). 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. As a consequence, the statute no longer allows international organizations immunity from lawsuits arising from their commercial activities. In my view, the statute grants international organizations that immunity—just as foreign governments possessed that immunity when Congress enacted the statute in 1945. In reaching this conclusion, I rest more heavily than does the majority upon the statute’s history, its context, its purposes, and its consequences. And I write in part to show that, in difficult cases like this one, purpose-based methods of interpretation can often shine a useful light upon opaque statutory language, leading to a result that reflects greater legal coherence and is, as a practical matter, more sound.[8] ”

    Text of the opinion

    • Read the full opinion here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1011 Jam v. International Finance Corp." accessed October 10, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 United States Supreme Court, "Jam v. Int'l Finance Corp." Opinion, February 27, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1011 Jam v. International Finance Corp." accessed October 10, 2018
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Jam v. International Finance Corp." accessed October 10, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Oyez, "Jam v. International Finance Corp." accessed October 10, 2018
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 SCOTUSblog, "Justices grant four new cases," accessed October 10, 2018
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Jam v. Int'l Finance Corp. argued October 31, 2018
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Jam_v._Int%27l_Finance_Corp.&oldid=9117273"