A view of the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, March 15, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) ** FILE **
A view of the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, March 15, 2019. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) ** FILE ** A view of the Supreme Court … more >
The Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with whether Americans can sue the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority for damages when they or family members are injured in a terrorist attack.
The arguments come following the Oct. 7, 2023, raid on Israel by Hamas, the Palestinian-led terrorist group that’s separate from the Palestinian Authority.
The case that was argued on Tuesday centered on terrorist attacks against Americans in Israel from 2001-24. The Americans were killed by actors on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, according to court records.
The challengers say the Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act — enacted in 2019 under the Anti-Terrorism Act — lets them sue the Palestinian Authority and PLO for damages, saying the groups “shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction” in the U.S.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, invalidating the statute as unconstitutional. The court said it ran afoul of due process rights and rights under the Fifth and 14th amendments since the defendants were in Palestine.
Kent Yalowitz, representing Miriam Fuld, whose relative was stabbed to death by a Palestinian in 2018 motivated by the Palestinian Authority, told the justices that the PLO and P.A. directed their terrorist activities against U.S. citizens, who are under America’s protection even while located overseas.
“The protection of the United States travels with you,” he said. “Congress and the courts are nationwide actors.”
The U.S., through the Justice Department, also urged the justices to uphold the Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.
Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general of the Justice Department, said the 2nd Circuit’s decision undermines Congress’ decision-making.
He said Congress and the president can decide what is fair or problematic in relation to other nations, terrorism and international law.
“It’s up to Congress and the president to weigh,” he said.
Mitchell Berger, representing the PLO, said the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that this type of conduct at issue in Tuesday’s case is insufficient for jurisdiction.
“It has been true from the founding that personal jurisdiction in the custody of the judicial branch is over and above what Congress can prescribe,” he said.
Some of the justices were skeptical of the claim that Congress — or the executive branch — should be second-guessed when it comes to national security and foreign policy decisions.
“You are going to be second-guessing the executive branch,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said.
“Courts should not be coming in, I don’t think, without that and saying, ‘Gee, what Congress and the president are doing here to advance the national security and foreign policy perch strikes us as unfair,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said.
The PLO was founded in 1964. Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority is recognized as a sovereign state by the U.S. However, the PLO serves as a “Permanent Observer to the United Nations” on behalf of Palestinians.
The U.S. government, in its filing, said the PLO has dozens of “embassies, missions and delegations around the world,” including a U.N. mission in New York.
The cases are Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Copyright © 2025 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.