Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term.

[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.

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.

However, starting in the 1950s, the State Department began to adopt a narrower view of foreign sovereign immunity.

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.

[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.

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.