Plain-English summary
Court allows statute deeming PLO and PA to have consented to U.S. jurisdiction in some terrorism cases
The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and upheld part of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA). The Court held that the statute’s provision treating the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) as having consented to personal jurisdiction in certain Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) suits does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements.
Why this matters
The decision determines when U.S. courts can hear civil terrorism claims against foreign organizations that the statute targets. It affects victims’ ability to sue for damages, influences how Congress can design statutes that treat foreign entities as consenting to U.S. jurisdiction, and clarifies constitutional limits on those congressional choices.
Who may feel it
- Terror victims and their families seeking money damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act
- The Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority
- U.S. courts and litigants in terrorism-related civil cases
- Congress and policymakers drafting statutes about jurisdiction over foreign actors
Key questions
- Whether the PSJVTA’s provision treating the PLO and PA as having consented to personal jurisdiction in certain ATA cases violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.