Supreme Court revives lawsuits seeking to hold Palestine Liberation Organization liable for terrorist attacks
The Supreme Court has revived lawsuits against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority over terrorist attacks that killed and injured Americans.
The justices on Friday unanimously overturned a ruling from a federal appeals court that Congress violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process by enacting a 2019 law that expanded the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to hear terrorism-related suits against the PLO and PA.
In
an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts
, the high court cited the history of U.S. interaction with the Palestinian entities and the 'sensitive foreign policy concerns' behind Congress' choice to authorize federal courts to hear the terrorism-related cases. Congress' decision to expand the courts' jurisdiction in these circumstances does not violate due process-based limits on the reach of U.S. courts, Roberts said.
'It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that
ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to … compensation' under U.S. law, Roberts wrote.
Roberts insisted the ruling was not a sweeping one signaling that Congress could subject any foreign entity to litigation in the U.S. over any conduct at any time.
The 2019 law, known as the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not put the Palestinian entities 'at broad risk of being haled into U.S. courts for myriad civil liability actions,' Roberts emphasized. 'Rather, the statute applies only to … a narrow category of claims that provide civil remedies only for Americans injured by acts of international terrorism.'
The high court's decision reinstates lawsuits that were brought on behalf of
Americans killed or injured in a 2001 shooting attack in Jerusalem, the bombing of a Hebrew University cafeteria in
that city in 2002, a bus bombing there in 2004 and
a stabbing attack outside a shopping center in Gush Etzion
, Israel, in 2018.
The suits contend that the PLO and PA's practice of making payments to the families of Palestinians killed or imprisoned in connection with acts of terrorism encouraged such acts and rendered the PLO and PA financially liable for damages sought by victims and their families.
A PA spokesperson did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the ruling.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled in 2023
that Congress' tweak to the law four years earlier, attempting to give the courts 'personal jurisdiction' over the PLO and PA, was unconstitutional.
Roberts' opinion was fully joined by six other justices — all three of the court's liberals and three of the conservatives. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined their colleagues in overturning the 2nd Circuit ruling, but adopted different rationales for doing so.
'The Federal Government has always possessed the power to extend its jurisdiction beyond the Nation's borders,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. Gorsuch joined that portion of Thomas' concurrence.
In another passage Gorsuch did not join, Thomas went further. 'I am skeptical that entities such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) enjoy any constitutional rights at all,' Thomas wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Judge orders Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from detention
Khalil was the first arrest under President Donald Trump's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's devastating war in Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Farbiarz had ruled earlier that the government can't continue to hold Khalil on those grounds, but the government argued the legal U.S. resident was instead being held based on allegations that he lied on his green card application. Khalil disputes the accusations that he wasn't forthcoming on the application. Advertisement Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. His lawyers say the Trump administration is simply trying to crack down on free speech. Khalil isn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. The international affairs graduate student served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists. He wasn't among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics. Advertisement The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic.
41 minutes ago
Prospects for diplomacy dim after Trump rejects Europe's efforts on Iran: ANALYSIS
Under a self-imposed deadline to pursue diplomacy with Iran and with no direct negotiations with the U.S. on the horizon, President Donald Trump acknowledged on Friday that the situation in the Middle East appeared to be deadlocked -- but said he would still give the Iranians a chance to "come to their senses." "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," the president said. Earlier in the day, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrapped up talks with several of his European counterparts in Geneva, but reiterated Iran's demand that Israel stop attacks on the country before it would be willing to seriously pursue any negotiations. Asked whether he would ask the Israelis to hold back, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now." "If someone is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if someone is losing," he said. "But we are ready, willing and able and have been speaking to Iran and we'll see what happens." The president also dismissed the talks held in Europe, playing down the already low expectations for a breakthrough. "They didn't help," Trump said of the discussions. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one." But despite the president's claim, Iran has so far rebuffed a standing offer from the U.S to resume nuclear negotiations. Some administration officials have argued that the president's posture is setting the stage for Iran to ultimately cave—betting that the regime will bend under regular Israeli bombardment and ultimately back off from key demands on enriching uranium under a new nuclear deal with the U.S. They also see Iran's leadership as scrambled by the assault from Israel and predict it might take several days before it is logistically possible to convene a meaningful round of negotiations with the U.S. Meanwhile, as sharp differences between Israeli and American assessments on Iran's nuclear abilities have come to the forefront, Trump has also showcased distrust for his own intelligence community, including his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. On Friday, Trump was asked about Gabbard's testimony to Congress in March that the U.S. assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. "She's wrong," Trump said flatly. Shortly after Trump spoke, Gabbard criticized the news media, posting on X, "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." The president's decision to hold back on hitting Iran has frustrated Israeli officials, who have been privately pushing their case for U.S. military involvement for months, according to officials familiar with the matter. At the United Nations Security Council on Friday, Israel's permanent representative to the body Danny Danon insisted his country could go it alone. "This isn't just Israel's fight, it is the world's fight. And if no one else will fight it, we will," he declared. But as Trump ponders military action and its possible consequences, analysts say giving Iran extra time may come with its own risks. "Iran could use the talks simply to buy time in the conflict or, at worst, to shift around its nuclear material and sprint to a bomb, although it would presumably be difficult to fully develop a nuclear weapons capability amid an ongoing war," said Heather Williams, the director of the Project on Nuclear Issues and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Already, the security of tens of thousands of Americans in the Middle East is already in peril. According to the State Department, it has now provided "information and support" to over 25,000 people seeking guidance regarding the security situation in Israel, the West Bank and Iran. The department is planning government evacuations for U.S. citizens in Israel but has warned it does not anticipate offering direct assistance to Americans in Iran.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Where troops in Middle East are most vulnerable to Iran strikes
Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are within Iran's striking distance should President Trump decide to wade into Israel's conflict with Tehran and directly attack the country. More than 40,000 American service members and civilians – as well as billions of dollars in military equipment – are in the Middle East, spread out across bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Those working in countries closest to Iran, including Iraq and Kuwait, would conceivably have only minutes to prepare for an incoming Iranian strike, a likely outcome should Trump order the U.S. military to join Israel's bombing campaign, experts say. 'If [Iran] had the ballistic missiles ready to go, those strikes could happen in under 15 minutes. Launched to target,' retired Col. Seth Krummrich, vice president at security consultancy firm Global Guardian, told The Hill. 'They move very quickly.' Israel last week unleashed a barrage of airstrikes on Iran that set off the largest conflict ever between the two regional adversaries, with Tehran responding with its own attacks. The war has threatened to pull in the U.S., which says it supports Israel's right to defend itself but has not directly involved itself in the bombing. Trump has not yet decided on possible American military action against Iran, telling reporters through his top spokesperson that he would make his decision within a fortnight. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' according to the Trump statement relayed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday. But Iran has already threatened to directly attack U.S. forces should they enter Israel's war campaign, with the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warning on Wednesday that 'Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage.' Tehran's threats aren't idle, as the country has retaliated against Washington in the past, most notably in January 2020, when Trump in his first term ordered an airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force. The strike, which happened as Soleimani traveled to Baghdad, prompted a swift response from Iran, which days later hammered Al Asad Air Base in Iraq and another U.S. base in Erbil with 13 ballistic missiles. While no Americans were killed in the largest ballistic missile attack ever against U.S. forces abroad, more than 100 were later diagnosed and treated for traumatic brain injuries. Now, with Trump reportedly considering using the GBU-57 – known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or so-called 'bunker buster' bomb – to damage Iran's Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, a similar attack from Tehran could soon be at hand. 'If there was to be a U.S. attack like they dropped the big bunker buster, if that happened, then I would assume that you would see an Iranian missile strike aimed at one or multiple U.S. bases,' said Krummrich, a former Special Forces officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the face of such a threat, military officials move to pull valuable assets out of the bases deemed most likely to be attacked, he said, pointing to the departure of some aircraft from Al Asad Air Base, as seen in public satellite imagery this week. He guessed that Al Asad Air Base, where many of the roughly 2,500 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are located, as the most likely target given its close proximity to Iran and the fact that it's been hit in the past. Iran 'would tend to not want to poke the eye' of the United Arab Emirates, where 3,500 U.S. military personnel are located, or Qatar, home of Al Udeid Air Base, the largest U.S. military site in the Middle East, Krummrich predicted. About 10,000 American forces are at Al Udeid, the regional headquarters for the U.S. Central Command. In addition, 13,500 U.S. troops are stationed across five bases in Kuwait, 9,000 military and civilian personnel are at the Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, and hundreds more troops placed elsewhere on bases run by Jordan, Syria and Oman. The former head of Centcom, retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel told The Hill that Middle East bases have protective measures built into them to reduce risk, pointing to the aircraft moved from more vulnerable installations, 'But of course, we have a lot of diplomatic facilities, we have a lot of private sector interests there that could be vulnerable as well,' said Votel, now at the Middle East Institute. So, There's a lot of opportunity for Iran here.' U.S. bases and those that house American troops are also at risk of being attacked by Iran-back militias in the region, like in the case when three Army soldiers were killed in a drone attack on a small U.S. outpost in Jordan in January 2024. Following Israel's strikes on Iran on June 13, three drones were shot down near Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq, The Associated Press reported. At least four other U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria have come under fire from Tehran-supported militants since Israel's bombing campaign began, including three installations in northeastern Syria between June 14 and 15, according to local reports. Asked about the attacks, a spokesperson from U.S. Central Command would not confirm or deny whether they took place. 'We are aware of these reports but have nothing operational to provide,' they said, pointing further queries regarding the conflict between Israel and Iran to the White House. U.S. officials this week have insisted that U.S. forces are well prepared to respond to any Iranian-launched attacks, surging more firepower to the Middle East including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group. The Pentagon also has moved refueling tanker aircraft to the nearby European theater, and placed warships in the Mediterranean Sea to help shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. The Nimitz is set to take over from the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, currently in the Arabian Sea to provide security for U.S. forces near the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, but the two vessels will likely overlap for several days. More covertly, the Air Force earlier this week moved a dozen F-16 fighter jets from a base in Italy to Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia, according to Aurora Intel, which reviews open source information in the Middle East. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday declined to say whether he had been asked to provide Trump with military options for Tehran, saying during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that he 'wouldn't disclose that in this forum.' But he added that his job is 'to make sure the president has options, is informed of what those options might be, and what the ramifications of those options might be.' Hegseth also on Wednesday told senators that 'maximum protection' measures were in place in the region. Asked by The Hill whether the protections could adequately repel an Iranian attack, a Pentagon spokesperson referred the outlet to Hegseth's post to X on June 16, when the Defense secretary announced the 'deployment of additional capabilities' to the Middle East. 'Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these deployments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region,' he said.
