On a significant legal front, the U.S. Supreme Court recently reinstated lawsuits against Palestinian authorities initiated by Americans who suffered casualties in terrorism-related incidents in the Middle East. This ruling comes in response to a longstanding effort by families of victims who assert that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) played roles either in the attacks or in inciting them. The Court’s decision supports a 2019 piece of legislation aimed at facilitating these lawsuits, which had faced repeated legal challenges in lower courts.
The incidents in question date back to the early 2000s, including a tragic attack that resulted in the deaths of 33 individuals and left hundreds more injured. Notably, one of the most dramatic assaults occurred in 2018, when a U.S.-born Israeli settler was fatally attacked by a Palestinian assailant near a mall in the West Bank. The families of victims have maintained their position that the Palestinian leadership bears some responsibility for perpetuating violence against Americans, thus justifying the legal actions taken in U.S. courts.
However, the Palestinian authorities have consistently contested the legitimacy of these lawsuits, arguing that they should be barred from American judicial proceedings. Previously, the federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of the PLO and PA multiple times, dismissing the victims’ claims despite a clear legislative intent from Congress to allow such trials. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals notably overturned a substantial $654 million jury verdict in 2016, on the grounds that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over foreign entities regarding actions that weren’t directly aimed at the U.S.
The legal landscape is shaped by the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law established in 1992 to provide a pathway for U.S. citizens victimized by international terrorism to seek justice. This legislation was partly motivated by the assassination of American Leon Klinghoffer during a terrorist hijacking in 1985, illustrating the ongoing U.S. commitment to back victims of terror. Under this law, victims initially secured a jury ruling that found the PLO and PA liable for six attacks, leading to an impressive $218 million damages award, which was subsequently tripled by law.
Despite setbacks in the judicial system, the victims’ advocates have worked tirelessly to modify existing legislation to ensure continued access to U.S. courts. Following a Supreme Court dismissal of their previous appeal in 2018, Congress took proactive steps to amend the law, underscoring a robust commitment to not only revisit the courts but to hold the Palestinian leadership accountable for attacks against Americans. The push for accountability remains a pivotal element in the broader discourse surrounding U.S.-Middle East relations.
As this legal saga unfolds, the implications extend beyond individual cases, touching on international legal standards, the sovereignty of foreign entities, and the U.S. role in addressing terrorism. The recent Supreme Court ruling represents a critical juncture for victims and their families, as they seek acknowledgment and recompense for their suffering. The legal battle exemplifies the complexities of terrorism-related litigation, highlighting the tension between U.S. legislative intent and international diplomatic principles.
