American victims of overseas terror attacks just scored a major win. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled this week that lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) can proceed in U.S. courts, as SCOTUS Blog reports. This decision smacks down progressive attempts to shield foreign entities from accountability.
The ruling allows U.S. citizens injured or killed in terrorist attacks in Israel to seek justice against the PA and PLO. It reverses a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had blocked these lawsuits, claiming the PA and PLO hadn’t consented to U.S. jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s move signals a no-nonsense approach to protecting Americans abroad.
Congress laid the groundwork with the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act in 2019. This law declared that the PA and PLO consent to U.S. jurisdiction in civil cases if they pay terrorists in Israeli prisons or their families for attacks on U.S. nationals. It’s a law that cuts through diplomatic fluff and targets terror financing directly.
Chief Justice John Roberts penned the unanimous opinion, torching the PA and PLO’s defense. They argued that the 14th Amendment's “minimum contacts” standards should apply, requiring ties to the state where a lawsuit is filed. Roberts dismissed this, noting the federal government’s “nationwide and extraterritorial authority” under the Fifth Amendment.
“Both nationwide and extraterritorial authority,” Roberts wrote, underscoring the federal government’s reach. The PA and PLO’s attempt to hide behind state-level jurisdictional rules was a weak dodge, and the Court wasn’t buying it. This clarity ensures foreign actors can’t exploit legal loopholes to evade justice.
The 2nd Circuit had previously ruled that inferring consent from the PA and PLO’s conduct was unfair. The Supreme Court’s reversal exposes that reasoning as soft on terror. It’s a wake-up call for courts tempted to prioritize foreign sensitivities over American victims.
The 2019 law ties jurisdiction to actions like payments to terrorists who harm Americans. Such payments, whether to jailed attackers or families of deceased ones, trigger U.S. court authority, even for pre-2019 acts. Congress crafted a law that hits terror backers where it hurts.
Roberts emphasized the federal government’s “interest in holding accountable those who perpetrate an act of violence against U.S. nationals.” This isn’t just legal jargon -- it’s a declaration that Americans abroad remain under U.S. protection. The woke crowd might cringe, but justice doesn’t bend to their feelings.
The case, as the victims’ lawyer quipped on April 1, is “old enough to go to law school.” Its long journey through the courts highlights the persistence of American victims and their families. They’ve fought for years against a system often skewed by globalist sympathies.
The PA and PLO leaned on 14th Amendment standards to argue against U.S. jurisdiction. Roberts rejected this, explaining that state-level limits don’t apply to the federal government’s broader authority. The Fifth Amendment, he noted, raises no such territorial concerns.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion joined partly by Neil Gorsuch, went further. He argued the Fifth Amendment imposes no limits on federal jurisdiction over foreign defendants. Thomas’s stance is a bold checkmate to those who’d let foreign terror groups off the hook.
The victims pushed the idea that the Fifth Amendment has no territorial limits at all. The federal government, however, suggested this question didn’t need answering here. The Court sidestepped defining exact Fifth Amendment boundaries, keeping the focus on the case at hand.
Roberts noted the 2019 law “ties federal jurisdiction to conduct closely related to the United States.” This isn’t about meddling in foreign affairs -- it’s about holding accountable those who target Americans. The law smartly balances justice with national security.
The ruling sends a message: the U.S. won’t coddle entities that bankroll terror. Progressive arguments about “unfair” jurisdiction sound hollow when American lives are at stake. The Court’s decision prioritizes victims over diplomatic handwringing.
This unanimous ruling is a rare moment of clarity in a world muddied by woke relativism. It affirms that U.S. courts can and should protect Americans, no matter where terror strikes. The PA and PLO now face the consequences of their actions, and that’s a win for justice.
