Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority

Background

Petitioners are relatives of Azzam Rahim, a naturalized U.S. citizen who, while visiting the West Bank, was arrested by Palestinian Authority intelligence officers, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. In 2005 the relatives sued the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization claiming torture and extrajudicial killing under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The District Court dismissed the suit, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, and the case reached this Court to resolve a split about whether organizations can be sued under the TVPA.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the word “individual” in the TVPA refers only to human beings or also to organizations. It relied on ordinary usage, the Dictionary Act, and the statute’s text, noting that the TVPA uses “individual” repeatedly to describe victims (who must be natural persons) and uses the broader term “person” elsewhere. The Court rejected petitioners’ arguments based on different dictionary meanings, supposed international tort conventions, and certain comparative statutes, and found no clear indication Congress intended to reach organizations. The Supreme Court therefore held that “individual” in the TVPA means natural persons only and affirmed the lower courts’ dismissals.

Real world impact

The ruling prevents victims from using the TVPA to sue organizations or nonsovereign groups such as the Palestinian Authority or the PLO; claims under the TVPA remain available only against individual people. The opinion notes foreign states are not covered and acknowledges that this limitation may reduce practical remedies for some victims, a result Congress could change by statute.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice wrote separately agreeing with the outcome and stressing that legislative history also supports Congress’s choice to limit the TVPA to natural persons.