The case of JAM v. International Finance Corporation (IFC) in 2018 revolved around the issue of whether international organizations like IFC have absolute immunity from lawsuits filed in U.S courts. The plaintiffs, a group of farmers and fishermen from India, sued IFC for funding a power plant that allegedly caused significant environmental damage impacting their livelihoods. They argued that IFC should be held accountable as they failed to ensure the project met its environmental standards. However, IFC claimed it was immune under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). Initially, both district court and appeals court sided with IFC citing IOIA which grants international organizations same immunity as foreign governments enjoy under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). But FSIA has been updated over time allowing certain exceptions while IOIA remained unchanged since 1945 leading to ambiguity about how much immunity applies today. This led Supreme Court to review this case where it ruled against absolute immunity for such institutions stating that these organizations can be sued for commercial activities just like foreign countries.

In the dissenting opinion for JAM v. INT'L FINANCE CORP., 2018, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA). They argued that international organizations should retain absolute immunity from lawsuits in U.S courts as was customary when IOIA was enacted in 1945. The dissenters believed that Congress intended to grant these organizations a fixed standard of immunity which would not change over time or be influenced by shifts in foreign sovereign immunities law. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on U.S participation in international organizations due to increased legal vulnerability following this ruling.