HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028561.jpg

Cite as: 586 U.S. (2019) 3 BREYER, J., dissenting organizations the “same immunity from suit ... as is enjoyed by foreign governments.” Brief for Petitioners 23— 24. They invoke the Dictionary Act, which states that “words used in the present tense include the future” “un- less the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U.S.C. §1. But that provision creates only a presumption. And it did not even appear in the statute until 1948, after Congress had passed the Immunities Act. Compare §1, 61 Stat. 638, with §6, 62 Stat. 859. More fundamentally, the words “as is enjoyed” do not conclusively tell us when enjoyed. Do they mean “as is enjoyed” at the time of the statute’s enactment? Or “as is enjoyed” at the time a plaintiff brings a lawsuit? If the former, international organizations enjoy immunity from lawsuits based upon their commercial activities, for that was the scope of immunity that foreign governments enjoyed in 1945 when the Immunities Act became law. If the latter, international organizations do not enjoy that immunity, for foreign governments can no longer claim immunity from lawsuits based upon certain commercial activities. See 28 U.S. C. §1605(a)(2). Linguistics does not answer the temporal question. Nor do our cases, which are not perfectly consistent on the matter. Compare McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816, 821 (2011) (present-tense verb in the Armed Career Crim- inal Act requires applying the law at the time of previous conviction, not the later time when the Act is applied), with Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 478 (2008) (present-tense verb requires applying the law “at the time suit is filed”). The problem is simple: “Without knowing the point in time at which the law speaks, it is impossible to tell what is past and what is present or future.” Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 488, 468 (2010) (ALIToO, J., dis- senting). It is purpose, not linguistics, that can help us here. The words “same ... as,” in the phrase “same immunity HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028561