The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to allow two lawsuits to proceed, filed by American victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In an opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices unanimously dismissed arguments that prosecuting these entities in U.S. courts violates due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.
This decision allows the victims’ claims, dating back several years, to be heard once again. The case focuses on the question of personal jurisdiction, which examines whether courts have the legal authority over these specific defendants. The legislative backdrop is the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act introduced by Congress in 2019. This act permits U.S. federal courts to adjudicate claims against the PA and PLO under the Anti-Terrorism Act, contingent upon their financial support to terrorists or slain terrorist families.
Previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled against the continuance of the lawsuits. The appellate court held that it would be unjust to assume the PA and PLO’s consent to U.S. jurisdiction based on these actions. However, the Supreme Court has now revived the case, contradicting the 2nd Circuit’s decision.
Chief Justice Roberts elucidated that the standards of personal jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment do not apply here. Those standards exist to check state power, and no such concern applies to the federal government, which possesses nationwide and extraterritorial authority under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Roberts additionally noted the federal government’s vested interest in holding accountable those who commit acts of violence against U.S. citizens, irrespective of their physical location.
While the Court chose not to comment explicitly on the Fifth Amendment’s constraints on summoning foreign defendants to U.S. courts, it asserted that the 2019 act sufficiently ties federal jurisdiction to activities significantly entwined with U.S. foreign policy interests.
Justice Clarence Thomas, with partial concurrence from Justice Neil Gorsuch, offered an additional opinion, suggesting a more expansive interpretation that the Fifth Amendment does not limit the federal government’s jurisdictional reach beyond national borders.