SCOTUS NEWS
By Amy Howe
on 6 December 2024
at 14.59
The court issued orders from the judges’ private conference on Friday afternoon. (Katie Barlow)
The Supreme Court agreed Friday afternoon to rule on whether a 2019 law that seeks to give U.S. courts the power to hear claims by victims of terrorism against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.
Full v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organizationwhich will be heard together in the spring, were two of the three requests for review granted by the justices after their private conference on Friday. The justices also agreed to take up the case of a Texas inmate seeking federal relief after conviction.
The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 provides that the PLO and PA are “deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction” in any civil action brought under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, a 1992 law that allows litigation in federal lands. court to recover treble damages for any American citizen injured by international terrorism. The PSJVTA applies regardless of when the act of terrorism took place if, at any time after the act’s passage, the PLO or PA has made payments to the families of terrorists, either dead or in prison, responsible for the death or injury of US citizens. The PLO and PA may also be deemed to have consented to jurisdiction if they maintain offices or conduct activities in the United States, although the law does not apply to official UN business.
A group of American citizens injured in terrorist attacks in Israel, along with survivors of American citizens killed in such attacks, filed a lawsuit in 2004. U.S. District Judge George Daniels ruled that his court had jurisdiction over the PLO and PA.
In 2015, a jury found the PLO and PA responsible for six terrorist attacks and awarded the victims $218.5 million. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act, that figure was automatically tripled to $655.5 million.
The US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit threw out the case the following year. It concluded that the PLO and PA did not have sufficient contact with the United States to be sued there in connection with the terrorist attacks. That prompted Congress (after an initial effort to resolve the jurisdictional issue failed) to pass the PSJVTA.
The victims and families had appealed to the Supreme Court, which then sent the case back to the lower courts for another look in light of the PSJVTA.
In 2020, the family of an American citizen murdered in the West Bank in 2018 filed their own lawsuit against the PLO and PA in federal court.
While emphasizing that it found the terrorist attacks that gave rise to the case “undoubtedly horrific,” the 2nd Circuit once again held that it lacked jurisdiction over the victims’ cases. The activities that trigger jurisdiction under the PSJVTA, the appeals court explained, cannot be “reasonably construed” to show that the PLO and PA “consented” to be subject to the courts of the United States.
The entire 2nd Circuit declined to reconsider the issue. Four justices dissented from that decision, in an opinion by Justice Steven Menashi, who characterized the issue as one of “unusual importance.”
Both the federal government (which had joined the cases to defend the PSJVTA’s constitutionality) and the victims came to the Supreme Court and asked the justices to take up the issue. The victims told the judges that the lower court’s decision was “more than dangerous” but was actually “flat wrong.” Moreover, they added, the appeals court “hoarded Congress on matters involving foreign affairs and national security.”
The federal government echoed these arguments, asserting that “The judgment of Congress that the PSJVTA is an important measure to advance American interests and to protect and compensate American citizens.”
The PLO and PA countered that the 2nd Circuit rulings have only limited practical effect because they apply only to the PLO and PA—but not to “Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic State, or any other terrorist groups or state sponsors of terrorism.” And in any case , they added, US courts will continue to have jurisdiction over cases brought under the ATA “where attacks are directed against the US or US citizens or are planned or financed in the US.”
In a brief unsigned order, the justices agreed Friday to take up both the victims’ and the federal government’s cases and consolidated them for an hour of oral argument.
The judges also agreed to hear Rivers v. Lumpkin, where they will determine whether and under what circumstances the federal statute that strictly limits the circumstances under which an inmate may file a second petition for federal postconviction relief prohibits an inmate from seeking to amend his original petition while it is pending appeal .
The judges will issue several orders from their private conference at 9:30 on Monday. However, this list of orders is likely to consist primarily of orders that deny review and are not expected to add new cases to the 2024-25 docket.
This article was originally published on Howe on the Court.
