The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a significant terror-related case involving the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The original case was brought to trial by American victims and the families of those murdered and injured in terror attacks sponsored or abetted by the PLO and the PA.
These victims have traveled down the road my attorney and I paved almost 30 years ago when I sued the Islamic Republic of Iran for its role as the state sponsor of the terrorists who murdered my daughter Alisa in a 1995 bus bombing while she was a student in Israel. While the law these plaintiffs used is a departure from the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act under which I proceeded, the principles are the same: terrorism’s actors and their sponsors should not be able to hide behind laws and government actions that effectively protect them from being held responsible for their actions.
So, in our case, after successfully getting the main obstacle blocking our litigation, a doctrine called “sovereign immunity” that protects most governments from being sued resolved, and proving that Iran sponsored the terrorists who murdered my daughter, the judge ordered Iran to pay us nearly $225,000,000 in damages for Alisa’s murder.
But no sooner had the ink dried on the judgment, the Clinton administration stepped in to block our enforcement efforts.
More laws had to be changed and immense pressure had to be put on certain politicians in order to get a settlement with the Clinton administration in 2001.
The plaintiffs in the current case before the Supreme Court, actually two cases consolidated into one, utilized the provisions of 2019’s Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) to bring suit, for a second time, against the PLO and PA. A 2016 ruling vacating a $655 million verdict against the PA due to jurisdictional issues set back the victims and a new road had to be laid.
The new road was the PSJVTA. The key provision of the law allows American victims of Palestinian terror attacks to sue the PLO and PA in U.S. courts if it can be proven that an organization paid a terrorist to commit an act against Americans, think of the effect of violations of the Taylor Force Act and “pay to slay” benefits given to terrorists and/or their families, or “conduct[ed] any activity” in the United States after the law was enacted.
In addition, the new act provided guidelines for U.S. courts to establish personal jurisdiction over the PA, ensuring that American victims could pursue their claims in US courts.
At trial, the plaintiffs alleged and proved to the satisfaction of the court that the PLO and the PA were responsible for the deaths and injuries suffered in the attacks. Yet, appeals were taken by the PLO and PA and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit determined that the PSJVTA was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment rights of the PLO and PA and determining that US courts can’t consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups for attacks not aimed at the United States.
In essence, the cases are not about the actual terror attacks, apparently all are in agreement that the PLO and PA bear responsibility, but about the legality of bringing terror’s sponsors and supporters before U.S. courts. And there lies the rub.
The appeals court basically said the PLO and PA, even though not citizens of the United States are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment’s requirements for due process. Thus, the Supreme Court’s decision will have significant and lasting implications for the ability of American victims of terrorism to seek justice in U.S. courts against foreign sponsors of terror.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the Second Circuit, it’s going to be a sad day not only for terror victims but all Americans.
