WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear an unusual case in which Congress intervened to help victims of terrorism sue Palestinian entities.
At issue is whether the 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, unconstitutionally violates the due process rights of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Congress, which rarely gets involved in specific cases, stepped in twice after the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
The underlying lawsuits are brought under a law called the Anti-Terrorism Act by various victims, including the family of Ari Fuld, an American citizen who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist at a West Bank shopping mall in 2018. Other plaintiffs involved in the litigation had previously won a $655 million judgment that the lower court threw out.
The legal question is a technical one on whether the defendants “consented” to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Congress forced their hand in the 2019 by saying it was assumed they had consented if two conditions were met.
One condition is that the defendants paid a terrorist convicted of or killed while committing a terrorist attack. The other is that the organization in question conducted any activity within the U.S. within 15 days after the law was enacted.
The PLO represents the Palestinian people internationally, while the PA exercises domestic government authority.
At the heart of the PLO and PA arguments is that Congress inappropriately forced them to consent to be sued, thereby violating their due process rights, and that the law is therefore unconstitutional.
The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar writing in court papers that the lower court rulings undermine Congress’ conclusion that the 2019 law was “an important measure to further U.S. interests and protect and compensate U.S. nationals.” The victims of terrorist attacks filed a separate petition.
Lawyers for the PLO and PA said in response that both defendants “have consistently objected” to being hauled before U.S. courts for more than a decade.
