In a significant development, the Supreme Court has agreed to review whether families of victims of terrorist attacks in Israel are permitted to file lawsuits against the Palestinian Authority in federal court, where they aim to obtain compensation amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars for damages. This case has captured widespread attention, not just due to the legal implications but also because of its connection to the broader regional tensions that characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the cases arises from two distinct appeals; one originated from the family members of victims who have taken legal action against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). In contrast, the second appeal involves the Biden administration, which is supporting the families’ right to sue. This rare involvement by the federal executive underscores the importance of the issue at hand, highlighting not only the gravity of the victims’ plight but also the complex intersection of U.S. law with international matters concerning the Middle East.
At the heart of this legal confrontation are a string of violent attacks that transpired during the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, a period marked by intense strife and unrest between Israelis and Palestinians. While these cases do not directly correlate with the ongoing conflicts currently involving Hamas and Israel, they traverse a legal and emotional landscape deeply rooted in the historical and contemporary struggles that characterize the region.
In 2015, a federal court rendered a ruling in favor of the victims, compelling an award exceeding $650 million under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act. This Act enables U.S. citizens to seek reparations for damages inflicted by terrorist actions. Nevertheless, this decision was subsequently overturned by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over both the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, creating a complex legal precedent that is now under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.
Initially, the Supreme Court opted not to examine the appellate court’s ruling in 2018. However, legislative developments changed the landscape significantly. In 2019, Congress passed a law that facilitates the ability of plaintiffs to compel the Palestinian factions into U.S. courts. The law has faced scrutiny, leading to further legal challenges surrounding its constitutionality, particularly with regard to equal protection principles.
As litigation journeys through the lower courts, significant rulings have arisen disputing the legitimacy of the law. Lower courts indicated that the law violates clauses of equal protection, a stance that has garnered support from the Biden administration. In an unprecedented move, the administration took action to defend the law and subsequently filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in August. The complexities of this legal chess match reflect broader societal tensions while emphasizing the critical role of judicial review in navigating international law intersecting with domestic judicial principles.
Commentary from the plaintiffs denounces the 2nd Circuit decision, branding it as not only “dangerous” but also “flat wrong.” They firmly believe that allowing accountability in U.S. courts for the actions of foreign entities linked to terrorism is essential for justice. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority’s brief to the Supreme Court argues against U.S. jurisdiction, contending that it lacks a constitutionally significant connection to the United States. They assert that permitting federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over alleged attacks occurring in Israel and Palestine would infringe upon their due process rights.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the spring, with a decision expected before July. Given the case’s potential implications, its upcoming deliberations will likely draw significant public and legal interest. It stands not merely as a legal evaluation but as a focal point for broader discussions on justice, international law, and the ongoing complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As the justices prepare to deliberate, the outcome could reshape how victims of international terrorism seek and obtain justice within the American legal framework.
