Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
The Supreme Court cleared the way for American families who lost relatives to terrorist attacks in Israel to sue the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority in U.S. courts, reversing lower court rulings that had blocked those lawsuits as unconstitutional.
The decision settles a long-open constitutional question: federal courts operate under a more flexible standard than state courts when deciding whether foreign parties must answer in U.S. courts, giving Congress broader power to allow terrorism victims to sue abroad.
How it got here: Both district courts found the PLO and PA had made terrorism-related payments but ruled the PSJVTA unconstitutional; the Second Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two groups of American citizens — families of people killed or injured in terrorist attacks in Israel — sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) for civil damages under a federal anti-terrorism law. Congress passed the PSJVTA in 2019, declaring that the PLO and PA consent to U.S. court jurisdiction in such cases if they make payments to imprisoned terrorists or their families, or if they maintain offices or conduct activities on U.S. soil. Both district courts found the organizations had made such payments but ruled the law unconstitutional.
The question before the Court
Can Congress require the PLO and Palestinian Authority to face civil lawsuits by American terrorism victims in U.S. federal courts, even for attacks that happened overseas and had no connection to the United States?
The Court's answer
Yes — Congress can require the PLO and Palestinian Authority to answer terrorism lawsuits in U.S. federal courts. The Court resolved a long-reserved constitutional question: the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which limits the federal government, does not impose the same strict "minimum contacts" test that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts. Because the federal government has broader sovereign authority — including nationwide and extraterritorial power — the Constitution permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry for federal courts.
Under that more flexible standard, the 2019 law (the PSJVTA) is constitutional. It ties jurisdiction specifically to two conditions: payments to imprisoned terrorists who attacked Americans or their families, and operations on U.S. soil — both of which directly involve the United States. The statute applies only to anti-terrorism lawsuits, targets only these two named entities, and both were clearly put on notice that continuing certain conduct would expose them to U.S. court jurisdiction.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
American families and survivors of terrorist attacks in Israel — including a group that had previously won a $655.5 million jury verdict before it was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction — can now proceed with their lawsuits in U.S. federal courts. The ruling also gives Congress broader authority to craft laws subjecting foreign organizations to U.S. court jurisdiction for terrorism claims that endanger American lives.
What changes now
The cases are sent back to the lower courts to proceed under the constitutional framework the Supreme Court has now established. For the Sokolow plaintiffs — who previously won a $655.5 million jury verdict that was vacated for lack of jurisdiction — this means returning to district court to relitigate. The ruling does not determine whether the PLO and PA are ultimately liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act; that question remains for the trial courts to resolve on the merits.
What this does not decide
The Court deliberately left open the exact outer limits of the Fifth Amendment for federal court jurisdiction over foreign defendants, holding only that this particular, narrowly drawn statute does not cross those limits. The ruling also does not decide whether the PLO and PA have any constitutional rights at all — a threshold question Justice Thomas raised as potentially dispositive but declined to resolve absent full briefing.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas agreed with the outcome but argued the majority's analysis is 'largely unconnected to the Constitution's text and history.' He made two points: first, the PLO and PA may not qualify as 'persons' protected by the Fifth Amendment at all, since foreign governmental entities have traditionally not enjoyed constitutional rights — a question he urged the Court to resolve in a future case. Second, and joined by Justice Gorsuch on this point, historical evidence from the founding era shows the Fifth Amendment places no limits whatsoever on Congress's power to extend federal jurisdiction; any such limits came from international law principles that Congress has always had the power to override.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court addressed a constitutional question left open since at least 1987: does the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause impose the same limits on federal courts' jurisdiction over defendants as the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts? Personal jurisdiction is the requirement that a court have legal authority over the specific parties before it, and the answer matters only in the subset of federal cases where Congress — rather than state law — authorizes jurisdiction.
- The Fourteenth Amendment's personal jurisdiction doctrine — requiring defendants have 'minimum contacts' with the forum state — exists partly to protect interstate federalism, preventing states from overreaching each other's sovereign borders. That concern is unique to state courts. The federal government, by constitutional design, already holds nationwide and extraterritorial sovereign authority, making the interstate federalism rationale inapplicable.
- Because the state and federal governments 'occupy categorically different sovereign spheres,' the Court held that the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry than the Fourteenth Amendment allows. Fairness considerations remain relevant under the Fifth Amendment, but they do not compel the same rigid limits — because unlike in the state-court context, interstate federalism cannot be 'decisive' in overriding the defendant's convenience.
- Turning to the PSJVTA itself, the Court stressed that Congress and the President jointly enacted the law as a measured, targeted response to international terrorism threatening American lives. When both political branches act together in foreign affairs, their coordinate judgment receives especially strong deference from the courts. The statute also applies narrowly — only to anti-terrorism lawsuits, only to two named entities — rather than exposing the PLO and PA broadly to all civil liability.
- The statute's two jurisdictional triggers — payments to imprisoned terrorists who attacked Americans (or their families) and conducting operations on U.S. soil — are each directly connected to the United States. Because the jurisdiction is tied to predicate conduct bearing a meaningful relationship to the United States, the Court held the law satisfies whatever limits the Fifth Amendment imposes, without needing to define those outer limits precisely.
- As a final check, the Court evaluated reasonableness — a fairness-based inquiry potentially required even under the Fifth Amendment. The federal government's compelling interest in giving American terrorism victims a forum, the plaintiffs' strong interest in obtaining compensation, and the PLO and PA's failure to claim any undue burden from litigating in the United States all weighed in favor of jurisdiction being reasonable and fair.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes International Shoe Co. v. Washington (326 U. S. 310)
Its minimum contacts test governs state court jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment and does not apply to federal courts under the Fifth Amendment.