6 JAM v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORP. Opinion of the Court They claimed that pollution from the plant, such as coal dust, ash, and water from the plant’s cooling system, had destroyed or contaminated much of the surrounding air, land, and water. Relying on the audit report, they asserted several causes of action against the IFC, including negli- gence, nuisance, trespass, and breach of contract. The IFC maintained that it was immune from suit under the IOIA and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court, applying D.C. Circuit precedent, concluded that the IFC was immune from suit because the IOIA grants international organizations the virtually absolute immunity that foreign governments enjoyed when the IOJA was enacted. 172 F. Supp. 3d 104, 108— 109 (DC 2016) (citing Atkinson v. Inter-American Devel- opment Bank, 156 F. 8d 1835 (CADC 1998)). The D.C. Circuit affirmed in light of its precedent. 860 F. 38d 708 (2017). Judge Pillard wrote separately to say that she would have decided the question differently were she writing on a clean slate. /d., at 708 (concurring opinion). Judge Pillard explained that she thought the D. C. Circuit “took a wrong turn” when it “read the IOIA to grant inter- national organizations a static, absolute immunity that is, by now, not at all the same ‘as is enjoyed by foreign gov- ernments, but substantially broader.” /bid. Judge Pillard also noted that the Third Circuit had expressly declined to follow the D. C. Circuit’s approach. See OSS Nokalva, Inc. v. Kuropean Space Agency, 617 F. 3d 756 (CA3 2010). We granted certiorari. 584 U.S.__ (2018). II The IFC contends that the IOTA grants international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments enjoyed in 1945. Petitioners argue that it instead grants international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments enjoy to- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028548