Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T16:06:58.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jam v. International Finance Corp. (U.S. Sup. Ct.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2019

Nancy Perkins  and
Sally Pei
Nancy Perkins
Affiliation:
Nancy Perkins and Sally Pei are attorneys at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, which litigated the Atkinson case on behalf of the Inter-American Development Bank. Any opinions expressed in this note are the authors' individually and not the firm's or its clients'.
Sally Pei
Affiliation:
Nancy Perkins and Sally Pei are attorneys at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, which litigated the Atkinson case on behalf of the Inter-American Development Bank. Any opinions expressed in this note are the authors' individually and not the firm's or its clients'.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On February 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case of critical importance for international organizations. The question presented in Jam was whether U.S. law affords international organizations absolute immunity from suit in the United States, or whether international organizations instead are entitled to only the more limited or “restrictive” immunity that applies to foreign sovereigns under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 646 - 663
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

A version of this note was also published on the ASIL website at Jam v. International Finance Corp., ASIL Insights (May 1, 2019), https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/23/issue/3/jam-v-international-finance-corp.

1 139 S.Ct. 759 (2019).

2 Id. at 765.

3 22 U.S.C. §288a(b).

4 156 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

5 Id. at 1341. The Third Circuit subsequently departed from the D.C. Circuit's approach in OSS Nokalva, Inc. v. European Space Agency, 617 F.3d 756 (3d Cir. 2010).

6 Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 172 F.Supp.3d 104, 112 (D.D.C. 2016).

7 Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 860 F.3d 703, 705–06 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

8 Id. at 709 (Pillard, J., concurring).

9 139 S.Ct. at 768.

10 Id. at 768–69.

11 Id. at 771.

12 Id. at 771–72.

13 Id. at 773 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

14 Id. at 779 (Breyer, J., dissenting).

15 Id. at 779–81 (Breyer, J., dissenting).