Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Last updated
Jam v. International Finance Corp.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 31, 2018
Decided February 27, 2019
Full case nameJam et al. v. International Finance Corp.
Docket no. 17-1011
Citations586 U.S. ___ ( more )
139 S. Ct. 759; 203 L. Ed. 2d 53
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior
SubsequentRemanded, 760 F. App'x 11 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
Holding
The International Organizations Immunities Act grants international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch
DissentBreyer
Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
International Organizations Immunities Act, Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. [1] This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations (unlike foreign governments) had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

Contents

This case is notable because for the first time the Court established that US-based international organizations, such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, could be sued if their overseas investment activities caused harm in local communities. It overturned a decades-old standard established in the aftermath of World War II when newly-formed international agencies were first being established with headquarters in the United States. [2]

Background

The World Bank Group, headquartered in Washington, DC is a group of international organizations that finances infrastructure projects, mostly in developing countries. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), is the arm of the World Bank Group that specializes in lending to private sector investments and business interests in developing countries, whereas the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association (together known as the World Bank) mainly lends to middle-income and lower-income governments for projects, rather than business entities.

In the 2000s, the IFC provided $450 million USD to Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. to fund the construction of the Tata Mundra power plant in Gujarat, a coastal state in western India. [2] As part of the lending agreement (the IFC's Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability), the IFC requires loan recipients, including the power plant, to adhere to stringent human rights safeguards and environmental protections. The agreement allowed the IFC to revoke financial support for the plant if the plant failed to adhere to these requirements. [3]

However, the plant, which opened in 2012, emitted pollution which drained into local waterways and farmland, damaging the environment and creating hardship for local fishermen in the Kutch district. An internal audit conducted by the IFC's social responsibility division found that the IFC failed to provide appropriate levels of oversight. Local fishing and farming communities, with the aid of a not-for-profit group called EarthRights International and Stanford Law School, filed suit against the IFC in United States District Court, alleging breach of contract as well as the torts of nuisance and trespass. [3]

In lower courts

Since the IFC's headquarters were in Washington, DC, the plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2015, relying heavily on the IFC internal audit report as evidence. The IFC successfully moved to dismiss the case, [4] citing absolute sovereign immunity granted to international organizations under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) in 1945. The IOIA stated in part that international organizations "shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments". In 1945, when the IOIA was enacted, the sovereign immunity enjoyed by foreign governments was nearly absolute.

However, starting in the 1950s, the State Department began to adopt a narrower view of foreign sovereign immunity. Under this new interpretation, foreign governments would continue to enjoy nearly absolute immunity for acts conducted in their capacity as national governments. However, they could be sued in federal court for actions taken when acting as private commercial entities. [5] This more-restrictive view of sovereign immunity, including the waiver of immunity for commercial activities, was eventually codified by Congress into the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1972.

The IFC successfully argued that international organizations should retain the more expansive version of sovereign immunity that was standard when the IOIA was enacted in 1945, not the more restrictive view that was adopted starting in the 1950s. [5] The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the opinion of the District Court. [6] The plaintiffs finally appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted a writ of certiorari agreeing to hear the case in May 2017. [7] Stanford law professor Jeffrey L. Fisher argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. [3] Donald Verrilli, the former US Solicitor General (2011-2016), argued the case on behalf of the IFC. [8]

Supreme Court opinion

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was formerly on the DC Circuit Court which heard the case originally, recused himself and did not participate in the consideration of this case. [5]

In a 7–1 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's opinion. [1] [9] According to the Supreme Court, the most natural reading of the IOIA was that Congress intended to permanently tie the sovereign immunity enjoyed by international organizations and the immunity enjoyed by foreign governments. When Congress established the exception for commercial activities in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1972, that exception was 'inherited' by international organizations, who (in the language of the IOIA), "enjoy the same immunity from suit […] as foreign governments". [9] [2] Moreover, the Chief Justice refused to adopt a purpose-focused analysis that would have distinguished between the granting of immunity to states based on principles of comity and reciprocity, compared to international organizational immunity based on the need to carry out their functions without undue interference. In his decision, Roberts also noted that the IOIA only establishes a default set of rules and that international organizations may, in their charters, specify that they have absolute immunity from lawsuits and that the International Finance Corporation's charter did not include such a clause. [10]

In a dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer stated that Congress's purpose in enacting the IOIA was to confer the same type of immunity to international organizations that foreign governments enjoyed in 1945, when the statute was first enacted. He also encourages a "purpose-based" interpretation framework for the statute, noting that in 1945 Congress was attempting to create a safe harbor for newly created multilateral organizations, including the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, and that the founding charters of these organizations required member states to grant them broad immunity from suit. [2] [9]

As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, the case was remanded to the lower courts for further proceedings. [11]

Related Research Articles

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1795 amendment restricting ability to sue states in federal courts

The Eleventh Amendment is an amendment to the United States Constitution which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</span> United States law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602–1611 of the United States Code, that established criteria as to whether a foreign sovereign nation is immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts—federal or state. The Act also establishes specific procedures for service of process, attachment of property and execution of judgment in proceedings against a foreign state. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a civil suit against a foreign sovereign in the United States. It was signed into law by United States President Gerald Ford on October 21, 1976.

Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the policy of United States federal courts would be to honor the Act of State Doctrine, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal affairs would not be questioned in the courts of the United States.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Ruhal Ahmed, and Jamal Al-Harith, four former Guantánamo Bay detainees, filed suit in 2004 in the United States District Court in Washington, DC against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They charged that illegal interrogation tactics were permitted to be used against them by Secretary Rumsfeld and the military chain of command. The plaintiffs each sought seek compensatory damages for torture and arbitrary detention while being held at Guantánamo.

In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sovereign immunity in the United States</span> Legal protection of federal, state and tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his involvement in the detention of a U.S. citizen in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978), decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that foreign states are entitled to sue for treble damages in U.S. courts, and should be recognized as "persons" under the Clayton Act.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</span> United States copyright law

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred a California resident from bringing suit against an Austrian railroad in federal district court. The case arose after a California resident suffered traumatic personal injuries while attempting to board a train in Innsbruck, Austria. She then filed a lawsuit against the railroad in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in which she alleged the railroad was responsible for causing her injuries. Because the railroad was owned by the Austrian government, the railroad claimed that the lawsuit should be barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which provides immunity to foreign sovereigns in tort suits filed in the United States. In response, the plaintiff argued that her suit should be permitted under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception because she purchased her rail ticket in the United States.

Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case from the United States Supreme Court which addressed the issue of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank facilitated terrorist attacks by transferring funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East, some of which passed through Arab Bank's offices in New York City.

Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which precludes federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land. Although six Justices agreed that the Gun Lake Act was constitutional, they could not agree on why. In an opinion issued by Justice Thomas, a plurality of the Court read the statute to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over cases involving the property and held that this did not violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution. In contrast, Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, both of whom concurred in the judgment, upheld the Act as a restoration of the government's sovereign immunity. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justices Kennedy and Gorsuch, dissented on the ground that the statute intruded on the judicial power, in violation of Article III.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Court held that civil service of a lawsuit against the government of Sudan was invalid because the civil complaints and summons had been sent to the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. rather than to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum.

References

  1. 1 2 Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., No. 17-1011 , 586 U.S. ___(2019).
  2. 1 2 3 4 McDonnell, Tim (2019-03-07). "U.S. Supreme Court Rules That World Bank Can Be Sued". NPR. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  3. 1 2 3 Kerber, Jasmine (2019-05-29). "Lawyers, Stanford professors discuss Supreme Court ruling on environmental law and human rights". Stanford Daily. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  4. ↑ Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 172F. Supp. 3d104 ( D.D.C. 2016).
  5. 1 2 3 Howe, Amy (2018-10-24). "Argument preview: Court to consider immunity for international organizations". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
  6. ↑ Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 860F.3d703 ( D.C. Cir. 2017).
  7. ↑ Howe, Amy (2018-05-21). "Justices grant four new cases". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
  8. ↑ Wheeler, Lidia (2018-10-31). "Justices weigh if international organizations can be sued". The Hill. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  9. 1 2 3 Howe, Amy (2019-02-27). "Opinion analysis: Justices hold that international organizations do not have near-complete immunity". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  10. ↑ Hushon, Jeremy (2019-06-19). "Development banks: Immunity from lawsuits". Norton Rose Fulbright. Retrieved 2019-11-26.
  11. ↑ Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp.,760F. App'x11(D.C. Cir.2019).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.