A federal appeals court in New York has reinstated a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judgment of $655.5 million against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), marking a pivotal moment in a legal battle that has spanned two decades. The ruling restores a massive civil award for American victims of attacks carried out during the Second Intifada, reviving one of the most substantial terrorism-related judgments ever issued in a U.S. Court.
The decision comes after years of jurisdictional disputes and legislative maneuvering. For the families involved, the reinstatement of the US appeals court reinstates $655M terror verdict against PLO is not merely a financial victory, but a legal validation of their struggle to hold the Palestinian leadership accountable for violence that occurred in the early 2000s.
The case is rooted in the bloodshed of the Second Intifada, a period of intense uprising and suicide bombings. The plaintiffs—including 10 families of victims—originally sought damages for attacks in Jerusalem that left dozens dead and hundreds wounded. While a federal jury had already found the PLO and PA liable in 2015, that victory was short-lived when the appeals court initially threw out the verdict, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
The Legal Pivot: From Jurisdiction to Accountability
The path to this reinstatement was cleared by the 2019 passage of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. This legislation was specifically designed to allow U.S. Citizens harmed by overseas attacks to sue the PLO and PA in American courts under certain conditions, effectively bridging the jurisdictional gap that had previously shielded the organizations from civil liability.
Central to the court’s reasoning was the Palestinian Authority’s controversial “pay for slay” policy. This system provides monthly stipends to imprisoned militants and the families of those who carried out attacks, including those targeting Americans. The court found that these payments helped establish the necessary jurisdictional link to U.S. Courts, as the policy effectively incentivized and rewarded acts of terror.
In its recent opinion, the appeals court concluded that restoring the original 2015 judgment was the proper course of action, aligning with the “plain import” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance on the 2019 Act. By reversing its earlier dismissal, the panel allows the jury’s findings to stand, sparing the plaintiffs from the exhaustion of a full retrial.
A Timeline of a Twenty-Year Struggle
The complexity of this case reflects the intersection of U.S. Domestic law, international diplomacy, and the enduring trauma of the Second Intifada. The following table outlines the key milestones in the litigation:
| Year | Legal Milestone | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | Initial Lawsuit Filed | Ten families of victims sue PLO and PA for damages. |
| 2015 | Federal Jury Verdict | Jury finds defendants liable; awards $655.5 million. |
| Post-2015 | Appellate Dismissal | 2nd Circuit throws out verdict due to lack of jurisdiction. |
| 2019 | Legislative Action | U.S. Congress passes the Promoting Security and Justice Act. |
| Recent | Verdict Reinstated | Appeals court restores the $655.5 million judgment. |
The Human Cost of the Second Intifada
Beyond the legal technicalities, the case represents a profound human tragedy. The plaintiffs include relatives of those killed in the 2002 Hebrew University cafeteria bombing and the family of a man killed in the 2003 bombing of bus No. 19 in Jerusalem. The broader series of attacks involved in the case resulted in 33 deaths and hundreds of injuries.
For Dr. Alan Bauer, an American biologist seriously wounded in a 2002 attack, the victory is the culmination of a grueling journey. “I never imagined that the road to justice would be so long and winding,” Bauer said. “We were determined to hold accountable those who carried out acts of terror against us and to finally make them answer for their guilt and their crimes.”
Changing the ‘Rules of the Game’
Legal experts suggest that this ruling does more than just settle a single case; it creates a precedent that could open the floodgates for similar claims. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, one of the lead attorneys for the victims, described the ruling as a “historic turning point.”
“Not only does it restore the ability of American victims of terrorism to obtain compensation after years of struggle, it also changes the rules of the game,” Darshan-Leitner said. “From now on, U.S. Courts will be able to hear cases that previously could not even be brought before them.”
By cutting off the financial lifelines of organizations that support terrorism, the ruling seeks to create a tangible deterrent against the funding of violence. It tests the limits of congressional power to extend the reach of U.S. Courts into international disputes involving sovereign-like entities.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The next phase of the legal process will likely involve efforts to collect the $655.5 million award, a task that may prove as complex as the litigation itself given the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding the Palestinian Authority’s finances. Further filings regarding the enforcement of the judgment are expected in the coming months.
What are your thoughts on the intersection of U.S. Law and international terrorism claims? Share your perspective in the comments below or share this story on social media.
