Court Opinion Discusses Sovereign Immunity and the International Finance Corporation

4 JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. Opinion of the Court sovereign immunity. Under that theory, foreign govern- ments are entitled to immunity only with respect to their sovereign acts, not with respect to commercial acts. The State Department explained that it was adopting the restrictive theory because the “widespread and increasing practice on the part of governments of engaging in com- mercial activities” made it “necessary” to “enable persons doing business with them to have their rights determined in the courts.” Letter from Jack B. Tate, Acting Legal Adviser, Dept. of State, to Acting Attorney General Philip B. Perlman (May 19, 1952), reprinted in 26 Dept. State Bull. 984—985 (1952). In 1976, Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immun- ities Act. The FSIA codified the restrictive theory of for- eign sovereign immunity but transferred “primary respon- sibility for immunity determinations from the Executive to the Judicial Branch.” Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677, 691 (2004); see 28 U.S. C. §1602. Under the FSIA, foreign governments are presumptively immune from suit. §1604. But a foreign government may be sub- ject to suit under one of several statutory exceptions. Most. pertinent here, a foreign government may be subject to suit in connection with its commercial activity that has a sufficient nexus with the United States. §1605(a)(2). C The International Finance Corporation is an interna- tional development bank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The IFC is designated as an international organiza- tion under the IOIA. Exec. Order No. 10680, 3 CFR 8&6 (1957); see 22 U.S. C. §§282, 288. One hundred eighty- four countries, including the United States, are members of the IFC. The IFC is charged with furthering economic develop- ment “by encouraging the growth of productive private enterprise in member countries, particularly in the less HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028546