The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear significant cases involving the jurisdictional reach over foreign defendants in terrorism-related lawsuits, as well as the procedural intricacies of habeas filings. Central to these proceedings are two cases: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization. These cases focus on the applicability of a 2019 statute, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), designed to facilitate litigation against the PLO and the Palestinian Authority in U.S. courts.
The PSJVTA permits U.S. courts to assert personal jurisdiction in civil cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows U.S. nationals to seek treble damages for injuries stemming from acts of international terrorism. The statute implies consent to jurisdiction if the PLO or PA continue certain activities, including compensating families of terrorists or conducting certain activities within the United States. Despite these provisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit previously ruled that jurisdiction was lacking in these matters, prompting the call for Supreme Court evaluation.
The Court will also consider Rivers v. Lumpkin, a case addressing challenges in federal post-conviction relief procedures. At issue is whether federal law restricts an inmate’s ability to amend an original habeas corpus petition while appeal proceedings are ongoing.
The decisions in these cases may have profound impacts on the accountability measures available for terrorism-related damages and the procedural rights afforded to inmates seeking federal relief. More details about the cases and their implications can be found in the comprehensive coverage provided by SCOTUSblog.