Supreme Court to Rule on Palestinian Authority Terror Lawsuit

Supreme Court to Rule on Palestinian Authority Terror Lawsuit \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Supreme Court has agreed to decide if Palestinian authorities can face lawsuits in U.S. courts brought by American victims of terrorism in the Middle East. Despite congressional efforts to support these lawsuits, federal appeals courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, questioning the constitutionality of a 2019 law aimed at enabling these claims. The case will be argued in the spring.

Supreme Court Review of Palestinian Lawsuits: Quick Looks

• Case Background: Americans killed or injured in Middle East terrorism attacks are suing the Palestinian Authority and PLO.
• Legal Hurdles: The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2019 law enabling lawsuits, citing constitutional concerns.
• Legislative Efforts: Congress has twice amended laws to ensure victims’ access to U.S. courts, but challenges persist.
• Supreme Court’s Role: The high court will examine the constitutionality of the 2019 law and decide if lawsuits can proceed.
• Historical Context: The attacks date back to the early 2000s and involve claims of direct or indirect Palestinian involvement.

Deep Look

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a high-stakes legal case concerning whether the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) can be held liable in American courts for terrorism-related lawsuits filed by U.S. citizens. This case, which has been litigated for years, revolves around allegations that Palestinian agents either orchestrated or incited attacks that killed or injured Americans in the Middle East, including a 2018 stabbing incident near a West Bank mall.

Context of the Dispute

The legal battle began over two decades ago when families of victims filed lawsuits under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), a 1992 law designed to provide a legal pathway for victims of international terrorism to seek damages. In a landmark case, the victims initially won a $654 million jury verdict against the PLO and PA for their alleged roles in six deadly attacks during the early 2000s. However, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that verdict in 2016, ruling that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over foreign entities for acts not explicitly targeting the United States.

The court’s decision marked a significant setback for victims and their families. They argued that Palestinian authorities bore responsibility for the attacks, either through direct involvement or incitement. Congress subsequently intervened, amending the ATA in 2019 to clarify that such lawsuits should be permissible in U.S. courts, but the appeals court struck down the amendment as unconstitutional, ruling it violated the due process rights of foreign entities like the PLO and PA.

Supreme Court Takes on the Case

The Supreme Court typically intervenes in cases where lower courts have invalidated federal laws. This dispute will test whether the 2019 amendments align with constitutional principles, particularly the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The Biden administration and the victims’ legal teams have strongly advocated for the high court’s involvement, emphasizing the need for justice and accountability for international terrorism.

Arguments are scheduled for the spring, with the outcome expected to have wide-reaching implications for the ability of U.S. citizens to hold foreign entities accountable for acts of terrorism.

The Attacks in Question

The case focuses on terrorist attacks that killed 33 people and injured hundreds during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s. These include a 2018 stabbing in the West Bank, in which a U.S.-born Israeli settler was killed. The victims’ legal teams claim the attacks were either carried out or incited by Palestinian officials or agents.

The legal process began with a significant jury award, where the PLO and PA were found liable and ordered to pay $218 million in damages. This amount was automatically tripled under ATA provisions. However, the appeals court repeatedly ruled against the victims, arguing that the attacks were not aimed at the United States and therefore fell outside U.S. courts’ jurisdiction.

Congressional Efforts

Congress has consistently amended anti-terrorism laws to address the obstacles victims face in court. After the appeals court’s initial 2016 ruling, lawmakers revised the ATA in 2019 to expand U.S. courts’ jurisdiction over foreign entities. The legislation clarified Congress’ intent to prevent foreign groups from evading accountability. Despite these efforts, the 2nd Circuit struck down the amendment, prompting the victims to escalate their fight to the Supreme Court.

Legal and Geopolitical Ramifications

This case could redefine the scope of U.S. laws addressing international terrorism. A ruling in favor of the victims may strengthen protections for Americans abroad and clarify Congress’ ability to craft legislation enabling justice for terrorism victims. On the other hand, a ruling upholding the appeals court decision could limit the application of U.S. anti-terrorism laws and reinforce due process protections for foreign entities operating on U.S. soil.

The Supreme Court’s decision will not only impact the specific lawsuits but could also shape how U.S. courts handle future cases involving international terrorism. This highly anticipated ruling is expected to address critical constitutional questions about the balance between national security, victims’ rights, and due process.

More on US News

Supreme Court to Rule Supreme Court to Rule