Supreme Court revives terror victim lawsuits against Palestinian groups
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a law allowing Americans injured by acts of terror in the Middle East to take Palestinian leadership groups to U.S. courts for damages.
In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) does not violate the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)'s due process rights by forcing them to consent to federal courts' authority.
The decision means that lawsuits by U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel can move forward in American courts.
The justices reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's ruling finding that the law denied the groups a fair legal process and directed the lower court to hold further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.
'The PSJVTA reasonably ties the assertion of federal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct that involves the United States and implicates sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
'We hold that the statute's provision for personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,' he said.
Congress enacted the law in 2019 to let victim lawsuits move forward against the PA and PLO, responding to a series of court decisions that found the victim's families had no jurisdiction to sue.
The justices consolidated two cases for arguments in April, a Justice Department appeal and an appeal by the family of Ari Fuld, an Israeli American fatally stabbed at a shopping mall in the West Bank in 2018.
The Justice Department argued that Congress determined the PA and PLO would be made open to U.S. civil suits if they made payments to representatives of terrorists who injured or killed Americans or maintained a certain presence in the country.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who held the role in the Biden administration, wrote in court papers that a lower court's finding those conditions fall short rests on a 'rigid and misconceived' application of the law.
The Biden administration initially intervened in Fuld's case — which received bipartisan support, including through a friend-of-the-court brief authorized by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) — and another case brought by 11 American families who sued the Palestinian leadership groups two decades ago for several attacks in Israel, winning more than $650 million in a 2015 trial.
In April, under the Trump administration, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler argued before the justices that the legislative and the executive branches together determined that it would prevent terrorism to find the PA and PLO consented to jurisdiction in federal courts. The justices should not override that assessment, owing both branches 'virtually absolute deference,' he said.
A lawyer for the PA and PLO argued that personal jurisdiction is 'over and above' what Congress can prescribe. He pointed to piracy as an example, noting that while piracy has been illegal since the nation's founding, 'no one' thought Congress would let pirates be tried in the U.S. without being present there.
'That's never been the law,' lawyer Mitchell Berger said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
19 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
We Need to Invest in the Heartland
For too long, the national conversation about innovation, the future of higher education, and economic growth has been dominated by a handful of colleges and universities largely based in coastal power centers. In doing so, we've overlooked the rest of the country and have weakened the broader foundation of American capitalism and democracy. There is another path forward—and it runs through the heartland of America. Across the country, families, and employers are rethinking the value of a college degree. Meanwhile, the pace of technological change is accelerating—AI is transforming industries, new sectors are emerging, and the demand for skilled talent is shifting rapidly. This comes at a time when public trust in institutions is eroding, and millions of Americans are asking whether our systems still work for them. Whether America leads or lags in this new window of opportunity depends on how we respond. With bold leadership and deep partnerships between universities and the private sector, the heartland can become the driving force behind America's next wave of innovation, economic competitiveness, and shared prosperity. Businesses and philanthropists are uniquely positioned to scale this pivotal moment: one that calls for a new, more inclusive era of American innovation and entrepreneurial growth. In the Midwest, universities are working hand-in-hand with businesses—and proving that the innovation and growth of the future will not be confined to any one part of the country. This region is uniquely suited to lead the next wave of American renewal. It has what the moment demands: grit, talent, urgency, and values that anchor capitalism in real lives and impact. As a nation, we often overlook where some of the most consequential innovation is happening. While innovation breakthroughs are happening at an exciting pace in the heartland, venture capital dollars continue to concentrate in California, New York, and coastal cities. Moreover, research centers are partnering with hospitals and farms, and in classrooms from coast to coast students are working with local employers to move forward in areas like AI, energy, bioscience, and robotics. This is where innovation reaches scale and serves everyday people, and not just markets or valuations. The future of American prosperity will be shaped by whether states, the federal government, and individual donors continue to invest in public universities embedded in their communities—institutions that serve as launchpads for discovery, entrepreneurship, and upward mobility for millions of people. For more than 80 years, universities have partnered with government and industry to drive innovation, advance research, and develop a skilled workforce. For the United States to maintain its global leadership, it is important for these three sectors to renew and strengthen their collaboration in the face of emerging challenges and opportunities. Public institutions, in fact, enroll three-quarters of the roughly 19 million college students in the United States, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. More specifically, America's land-grant institutions, created by and for the people, are uniquely positioned to rewrite the value proposition for higher education for the next generation. Access and opportunity are at the core of our mission, calling us to do work that directly benefits the people we serve. We exist to make life better in the communities of which we are a part. At The Ohio State University, demand is soaring for affordable academic programs, deep partnerships with industry, and innovation-based education and research. It's why we launched the Center for Software Innovation and joined the NextGenAI consortium from OpenAI—bringing additional research grants, funding, and API access to AI-related campus work. But for partnerships like these to grow, we need a mindset shift—within universities and across business and philanthropy. Investors and employers must see the Midwest as a wellspring of ideas, talent, and leadership. More broadly, we must ensure research dollars and economic incentives reach every corner of America. These investments make the United States more resilient and competitive globally while unlocking a wider pool of ideas, perspectives, and solutions. When America invests in our universities, we invest in well-rounded citizens, building social mobility and stability, and research that literally saves lives. We know this from experience. One of us is a Navy airman turned university president. The other, a software entrepreneur turned university benefactor and investor. We've seen how cross-sector leadership can create durable, inclusive growth. But this work can't be piecemeal. We need a national rallying cry to drive how, where, and why we invest in America's future. That future can start in the heartland, if we recognize its potential and act accordingly. The heartland doesn't just hold the key to America's economic future—it holds the promise of a robust economy rooted in community, powered by purpose, and capable of restoring trust in systems meant to serve us all.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Growing deficit, budget cuts yet still no mention of raising taxes on wealthy
Sen. Ron Johnson, speaking from his background, insists that the budget deficit will mortgage our children's futures. I'm not an accountant, but I do agree. I'm old enough to remember when corporations and the wealthy were not so wealthy yet were taxed at a much higher rate. The American dream was real, and America's debt was not a problem. Today, Congress struggles to fund innovations like Social Security, public healthcare and clean energy. Johnson warns that cuts outlined in the 'big beautiful' budget bill will not reduce the repercussions of our growing deficit. More and deeper cuts are needed, he says. This would disproportionately affect middle- and lower-income families, I must add. If I remember my Econ 101, rising prices from tariffs, and with that a likely recession, would deal an even heavier blow to families already hard hit. And still no mention of raising taxes on the wealthy. Suzanne Powell, Milwaukee Letters: House budget provision exempts executive branch from following court orders Letters: Wake-enhanced boating produces same dynamic as smoking in public places Here are some tips to get your views shared with your friends, family, neighbors and across our state: Please include your name, street address and daytime phone. Generally, we limit letters to 200 words. Cite sources of where you found information or the article that prompted your letter. Be civil and constructive, especially when criticizing. Avoid ad hominem attacks, take issue with a position, not a person. We cannot acknowledge receipt of submissions. We don't publish poetry, anonymous or open letters. Each writer is limited to one published letter every two months. All letters are subject to editing. Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 500, Milwaukee, WI, 53202. Fax: (414)-223-5444. E-mail: jsedit@ or submit using the form that can be found on the on the bottom of this page. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: I agree with Ron Johnson that budget bill mortgages future | Letters
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
