BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman

Background

A group of victims and family members of Hamas terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2003 sued BLOM Bank, an international bank, under the Anti-Terrorism Act. They alleged the bank aided Hamas by providing financial services to customers tied to the group. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice after plaintiffs said they would not amend, and the Second Circuit affirmed while clarifying the legal test for one element of aiding-and-abetting. Plaintiffs then moved under Rule 60(b)(6) to undo the final judgment so they could file an amended complaint to meet that clarified standard.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the strict Rule 60(b)(6) “extraordinary circumstances” standard becomes easier when a party seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. The Court held it does not. Rule 60(b)(6) is a narrow catchall that requires extraordinary circumstances on its own. Only after a party wins relief under Rule 60(b) can the usual Rule 15(a) principle—that courts should freely allow pretrial amendments—apply. The Court concluded the Second Circuit erred by blending the two standards and reversed the Second Circuit, finding the District Court’s denial of relief was within its discretion.

Real world impact

The decision makes it harder for plaintiffs to reopen final federal judgments simply to add or change allegations. Federal judges must find extraordinary circumstances before vacating a judgment even when a party says it wants to amend. The ruling does not decide the merits of the terrorism claims; it fixes the national standard for reopening closed cases and sends the case back to lower courts for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Jackson joined most of the opinion but wrote separately to stress that choosing to appeal rather than amend should not automatically be treated as fault that bars Rule 60(b)(6) relief.