Supreme Court revives lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from US victims of terrorism attacks
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday revived long-running lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from Americans who were killed or wounded in terrorism attacks in the Middle East.
The justices upheld a 2019 law enacted by Congress specifically to allow the victims' lawsuits to go forward against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority.
The attacks occurred in the early 2000s, killing 33 people and wounding hundreds more, and in 2018, when a U.S.-born settler was stabbed to death by a Palestinian assailant outside a mall in the West Bank.
The victims and their families assert that Palestinian agents either were involved in the attacks or incited them.
The Palestinians have consistently argued that the cases shouldn't be allowed in American courts.
The federal appeals court in New York has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, despite Congress' efforts to allow the victims' lawsuits to be heard.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first ruled in 2016 against the victims of the attacks from 20 years ago, tossing out a $654 million jury verdict in their favor. In that earlier ruling, the appeals court held U.S. courts can't consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the United States.
The victims had sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, signed into law in 1992. The law was passed to open U.S. courts to victims of international terrorism, spurred by the killing of American Leon Klinghoffer during a 1985 terrorist attack aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
The jury found the PLO and the Palestinian Authority liable for six attacks and awarded $218 million in damages. The award was automatically tripled under the law.
After the Supreme Court rejected the victims' appeal in 2018, Congress again amended the law to make clear it did not want to close the courthouse door to the victims.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
12 minutes ago
- CBS News
Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns with Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she has been "pretty clear" about her concerns over potential cuts President Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" would make to Medicaid and food benefits for her constituents in Alaska. In an interview for "CBS Sunday Morning," Murkowski told CBS News senior correspondent Norah O'Donnell that she hasn't given any absolute deal-breakers in the Senate legislation — but she's voiced her reservations about the Medicaid proposals. "I have not given anybody in the administration an absolute, this is my red line, right?" Because I think it's important that every step of the way, I communicate where my concerns are," Murkowski told O'Donnell in the interview airing this weekend. The reconciliation bill — or "one big, beautiful bill," as Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress have dubbed it — has passed the House, but remains up for debate in the Senate, where some Republicans are pushing for deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House-passed version allows. Medicaid is the entitlement program that offers government-backed health care for both low-income Americans and those with disabilities, with the federal government and states splitting the costs. While the House version adds a new work requirement to Medicaid for childless adults, the Senate wants work requirements to expand to parents of older children. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, provides food benefits to the poorest Americans, and some Senate Republicans are hoping to place more requirements on states. "So I've been pretty clear that when it comes to Medicaid, those cuts that would harm Alaskan beneficiaries, that's not something that I can take home, right? We have some of the highest health care costs in the country. We have 40% of Alaska's kids that are on Medicaid. I want to try to do what we can to address certain aspects of our entitlement spending. We've got to do that. But doing it with the most vulnerable bearing the brunt of that is not the answer," she said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from North Dakota, wants the reconciliation bill to pass by the July 4 holiday, but that deadline is quickly approaching. Watch more of the interview with Sen. Lisa Murkowski on "CBS Sunday Morning" on Sunday, June 22.
E&E News
13 minutes ago
- E&E News
New rule-busting text circulating for Republican megabill
New language being floated for the Republicans' megabill would halt proposed federal regulations that generate financial impacts not explicitly authorized by Congress. Text obtained by POLITICO's E&E News that is currently under review by the Budget Committee would authorize the White House to review all proposed agency rules with 'a non-negligible budgetary effect.' Rules that would spend more than $100 million, and are not directly tied to a law authorizing such spending, would be cut. The text, which could be added to the budget reconciliation bill through an amendment or another procedure, is reminiscent of the 'Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act,' which would give Congress final say over all major federal rules. Advertisement Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee (R-Utah) has been working on what he calls 'REINS-lite,' a version of the legislation intended to be more budgetary so it conforms with reconciliation rules.
New York Times
18 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mahmoud Khalil Must Be Released, Federal Judge Orders
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to release Mahmoud Khalil on bail, a ruling that would end a three-month detention for Mr. Khalil, the only high-profile pro-Palestinian demonstrator in the United States who remains in confinement. The ruling is a major victory and relief for Mr. Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent U.S. resident who played a leading role in demonstrations at the school's campus last year. Mr. Khalil, whose wife and infant son are U.S. citizens, has not been charged with a crime. Instead, the Trump administration justified holding him by invoking a rarely cited law that allows for the deportation of people who oppose the nation's foreign policy objectives. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, accused Mr. Khalil of spreading antisemitism. A week after he was arrested, the administration added other allegations against him, saying he had made paperwork errors when he applied for citizenship last year. The judge, Michael E. Farbiarz of Federal District Court in Newark, N.J., had already ruled that Mr. Khalil's detention could not be justified by the foreign-policy law. On Friday, he found that the remaining allegations against Mr. Khalil did not require that he be detained. Mr. Khalil was the first of many students, including other legal permanent U.S. residents, to be targeted by the Trump administration. His lawyers have argued that he was arrested because of his pro-Palestinian speech. He had remained in detention even as several students in similar straits were released. The Trump administration has accused Mr. Khalil of siding with the terrorist group Hamas without providing substantive evidence that he expressed support for the group. Mr. Khalil's lawyers have cited his comments that antisemitism has no place in the protest movement he has helped to lead. This is a developing story and will be updated.
