Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization

Background

The cases were brought by American citizens injured in attacks and by the United States under the Antiterrorism Act (a federal law that lets U.S. nationals sue for injuries from international terrorism). They sued the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, which carry out governmental functions in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Congress passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) in 2019, saying the PLO and PA would be treated as consenting to U.S. court jurisdiction if they made certain payments to prisoners or families of deceased terrorists or if they maintained offices or conducted activities in the United States.

Reasoning

The core question was whether that jurisdiction rule violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee. The Court said the Fifth Amendment does not import the Fourteenth Amendment’s "minimum contacts" test and allows a more flexible inquiry because the Federal Government has broader sovereign authority. The justices held the PSJVTA is narrow, tied to conduct that meaningfully relates to the United States, and implicates sensitive foreign policy judgments by Congress and the President. The Court also found the statute reasonable under factors like the plaintiffs’ interest and the lack of an unfair burden on the defendants.

Real world impact

The ruling means American victims may pursue ATA claims against the PLO and PA in U.S. courts when the statute’s payment or U.S.-activities conditions are met. The law applies only to ATA cases and to the two named entities, so it does not create broad new civil exposure. The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and sent the cases back for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but wrote separately, arguing the Fifth Amendment places no territorial limits and discussing whether such foreign entities count as constitutional “persons.”