2 JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. Opinion of the Court tion of a power plant in Gujarat, India. Petitioners are local farmers and fishermen and a small village. They allege that the power plant has polluted the air, land, and water in the surrounding area. Petitioners sued the IFC for damages and injunctive relief in Federal District Court, but the IFC claimed absolute immunity from suit. Petitioners argued that the IFC was entitled under the IOIA only to the limited or “restrictive” immunity that foreign governments currently enjoy. We agree. I A In the wake of World War II, the United States and many of its allies joined together to establish a host of new international organizations. Those organizations, which included the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, were designed to allow mem- ber countries to collectively pursue goals such as stabiliz- ing the international economy, rebuilding war-torn na- tions, and maintaining international peace and security. Anticipating that those and other international organi- zations would locate their headquarters in the United States, Congress passed the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945, 59 Stat. 669. The Act grants international organizations a set of privileges and immun- ities, such as immunity from search and exemption from property taxes. 22 U.S. C. §§288a(c), 288c. The IOJA defines certain privileges and immunities by reference to comparable privileges and immunities enjoyed by foreign governments. For example, with respect to customs duties and the treatment of official communica- tions, the Act grants international organizations the privi- leges and immunities that are “accorded under similar circumstances to foreign governments.” §288a(d). The provision at issue in this case provides that international organizations “shall enjoy the same immunity from suit HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028544