Allegations of Political Bias by FBI Leadership in Clinton and Trump InvestigationsLaw review article proposes extensive amendments to Federal Criminal Rules to implement Crime Victims' Rights Act
Case File
d-37313House OversightOtherDissenting Opinion Highlights Broad Immunity Granted to International Organizations Under U.S. Law
Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #028565
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Summary
The passage outlines legal reasoning about immunity for international bodies, but offers no specific allegations, actors, or financial flows. Its investigative value is limited to understanding legal Congress granted international organizations immunity similar to foreign governments. Immunity covers both commercial and non‑commercial activities. The dissent argues that such immunity may exceed w
This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.
View Source CollectionTags
legal-doctrineimfinternational-lawimmunityhouse-oversightun
Browse House Oversight Committee ReleasesHouse Oversight #028565
Ask AI about this document
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureText extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Cite as: 586 U.S. (2019) 7
BREYER, J., dissenting
the International Monetary Fund, Art. IX, §8, Dec. 27,
1945, 60 Stat. 1413, T. I. A. S. No. 1501. UNRRA required
members, absent waiver, to accord the organization “the
facilities, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which
they accord to each other, including ... [i]mmunity from
suit and legal process.”. 2 UNRRA, A Compilation of the
Resolutions on Policy: First and Second Sessions of the
UNRRA Council, Res. No. 32, p. 51 (1944). And the UN
Charter required member states to accord the UN “such
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfill-
ment of its purposes.” Charter of the United Nations, Art.
105, 59 Stat. 1058, June 26, 1945, T. 8S. No. 998.
These international organizations expected the United
States to provide them with essentially full immunity.
And at the time the treaties were written, Congress un-
derstood that foreign governments normally enjoyed im-
munity with respect to their commercial, as well as their
noncommercial, activities. Thus, by granting international
organizations “the same immunity from suit” that
foreign governments enjoyed, Congress expected that
international organizations would similarly have immu-
nity in both commercial and noncommercial suits.
More than that, Congress likely recognized that immu-
nity in the commercial area was even more important for
many international organizations than it was for most
foreign governments. Unlike foreign governments, inter-
national organizations are not sovereign entities engaged
in a host of different activities. See R. Higgins, Problems
& Process: International Law and How We Use It 98
(1994) (organizations do not act with “‘sovereign author-
ity,” and “to assimilate them to states ... is not correct’).
Rather, many organizations (including four of the five I
mentioned above) have specific missions that often require
them to engage in what U.S. law may well consider to be
commercial activities. See infra, at 12.
Nonetheless, under the majority’s view, the immunity of
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.