US Victims’ Lawsuits Revived: Palestinian Authority in Focus

The Supreme Court has revived long-running lawsuits against Palestinian authorities from americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel and the occupied West Bank.

WASHINGTON, 2025-06-20 20:41:00 – The U.S. supreme Court has sided with American victims of attacks in Israel and the occupied West Bank, allowing lawsuits against Palestinian authorities to move forward.

The Supreme Court’s decision revives legal battles seeking compensation for Americans harmed in attacks abroad, potentially impacting the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization.

• The Supreme Court upheld a law allowing lawsuits against Palestinian authorities.
• The ruling overturns a lower court’s decision that challenged the law’s constitutionality.
• The case involves Americans killed or injured in attacks in Israel and the West Bank.
• The plaintiffs seek monetary damages for violence that occurred years ago.

So,what does this ruling actually mean? The supreme Court’s decision clears the path for American victims of terrorism to seek financial redress from the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Understanding the PLO and Palestinian Authority: The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has historically been the main representative of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was established as an interim self-governing body in the Palestinian territories as a result of the Oslo Accords.

The 9-0 ruling reversed a lower court’s decision that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, infringed upon the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization’s due process rights under the US Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who penned the ruling, stated that the 2019 jurisdictional law aligned with due process rights as outlined in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

“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 a federal law known as the Anti-terrorism Act of 1990,roberts wrote.

The US government, along with a group of American victims and their families, had appealed the lower court’s ruling that invalidated a provision of the law.

Among the plaintiffs are families who in 2015 secured a $655 million judgment in a civil case, alleging that the Palestinian organizations were responsible for a string of shootings and bombings around Jerusalem between 2002 and 2004. They also include relatives of Ari fulla Jewish settler in the Israel-occupied West Bank who was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian in 2018.

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990: This act allows U.S. nationals to sue for damages resulting from international terrorism. it forms the basis for the plaintiffs’ claims in this case.

The ruling arrives amidst the backdrop of Jewish settlements on Palestinian-owned land, which are considered illegal under international law.

“The plaintiffs, US families who had loved ones maimed or murdered in PLO-sponsored terror attacks, have been waiting for justice for many years,” said Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

“I am very hopeful that the case will soon be resolved without subjecting thes families to further protracted and unnecessary litigation,” yalowitz added.

Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, and now Iran, served as a backdrop to the case. Since the war in Gaza began in October 2023, more than 55,000 people have been killed and 130,000 wounded, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

For years, US courts have struggled with the question of jurisdiction in cases involving the Palestinian authority and PLO for actions committed abroad.

The 2019 law stipulates that the PLO and Palestinian Authority automatically “consent” to jurisdiction if they engage in certain activities in the United States or make payments to individuals who attack Americans.

Roberts in Friday’s ruling wrote that Congress and the president enacted the jurisdictional law based on their “considered judgment to subject the PLO and PA (palestinian Authority) to liability in US courts as part of a comprehensive legal response to ‘halt, deter and disrupt’ acts of international terrorism that threaten the life and limb of American citizens”.

New York-based US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in 2022 that the law violated the due process rights of the PLO and Palestinian Authority. The New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

President Joe Biden’s governance initiated the government’s appeal, which subsequently was taken up by President Donald Trump’s administration.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 1.

Broader Implications and the Path Forward for victims

The Supreme Court’s decision has important ramifications beyond the immediate legal battles. The ruling regarding lawsuits against Palestinian authorities opens a window into the challenges of applying U.S. law to international conflicts and the pursuit of justice for victims of terrorism. It also highlights the complex interplay between legal rights, foreign policy, and the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Understanding the long-term consequences requires a closer look at the precedents established and the likely next steps.

One of the most critical elements of the ruling is its reaffirmation of the Anti-Terrorism act of 1990.This act allows U.S. nationals to sue for damages resulting from international terrorism.By upholding the law in this specific case,the court reinforces the principle that victims of terror have a legal avenue to seek redress,even when the perpetrators are not directly under U.S. jurisdiction. This could embolden other victims of terrorism to bring similar cases, perhaps impacting entities and individuals worldwide.

What does this mean for future cases of terrorism? The ruling establishes a precedent that could allow more lawsuits against entities accused of supporting terrorism. It emphasizes the U.S. government’s role in protecting its citizens by providing legal recourse. The focus here is on ensuring that victims of terror have a means to pursue justice in U.S. courts.

Challenges in Enforcing Judgments

Despite the Supreme Court clearing the way for these lawsuits, significant hurdles remain. Enforcing judgments against the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will be a complex undertaking. These entities may not have assets within the United States,making it challenging to collect on any financial awards.

Consider the 2015 judgment of $655 million secured by families,which is mentioned in the previous section. Actual receipt of this amount or any significant portion of it has been a long and arduous process. The Supreme Court’s decision provides a legal victory, but the task of securing financial compensation remains unresolved.

Potential obstacles:

• Asset location: Identifying and accessing assets controlled by the Palestinian Authority or PLO outside of the U.S.
• International Law: Navigating international laws and treaties that may protect sovereign entities from legal action.
• Political Ramifications: The potential for the ruling to complicate U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority and other nations.

The Political and humanitarian Context

The backdrop of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict further complicates the situation. The Supreme Court case unfolds against a backdrop of Jewish settlements in the west Bank and the ongoing war in Gaza, adding another layer of complexity to the legal environment.

Why is the timing of this ruling significant? The decision comes amid heightened tensions in the region. The war in Gaza, and now the emerging conflict with Iran, have intensified the existing political and humanitarian crises. This creates a more complex climate for legal proceedings.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza, where tens of thousands of people have died, underscores the human cost of the conflict. The legal battles and the fight for compensation by American victims are also set against this background.

Future legal Battles and Their Impact

Even with the Supreme Court’s decision,the legal process is far from over. The cases now go back to the lower courts, where the plaintiffs will need to prove the allegations against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. There is also the possibility of additional appeals and challenges, extending the legal timeline further.

The court’s ruling will likely affect how similar future cases are approached, setting a standard for jurisdiction and due process. It could also influence U.S. foreign policy towards the Palestinian territories and other areas involved in terrorism.

What to expect:

• Further Litigation: Continuation of appeals and legal arguments in the lower courts.
• Evidence Presentation: The plaintiffs must present evidence to prove the allegations against the Palestinian defendants.
• Impact on Relations: The ruling could affect U.S. relations with specific Middle Eastern entities.

Frequently Asked Questions

These frequently asked questions provide a concise overview of the case, its implications, and the legal framework that governs it:

1. what is the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990, and why is it relevant?

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990 is a U.S. law allowing citizens to sue for damages resulting from international terrorism. It’s the basis for claims brought by victims or their families in this case, providing a legal framework for seeking compensation.

2. What were the main arguments in the case before the Supreme Court?

The central legal issue was whether a 2019 law that allowed lawsuits against Palestinian authorities violated their due process rights. the Supreme Court was asked to decide if the U.S.could assert jurisdiction over the PLO and Palestinian Authority.

3. What is the importance of the Supreme court’s 9-0 ruling?

The unanimous decision reaffirms the legal standing of the Anti-Terrorism Act and clarifies the U.S. government’s ability to create jurisdictional laws in cases of international terrorism.It also establishes a legal precedent, allowing lawsuits to proceed against the Palestinian Authority and PLO.

4. What is the role of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)?

The PLO historically serves as the primary representative of the Palestinian people, while the PA is the governing body in the Palestinian territories.Both are central to this case as the suits allege that they bear liability for acts of terror committed against Americans.

5. What’s next for the plaintiffs and the accused entities?

The cases go back to the lower courts where plaintiffs must prove their allegations. The ruling also likely means protracted appeals and attempts at enforcing any judgements that are granted. The situation has ramifications for the PLO/PA, and also families impacted by terror attacks.