Justices resolve disputes over terrorism damage suits and habeas petitions
SCOTUS NEWS
Amy Howe
(Katie Barlow)
The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to decide 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 fair treatment.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which will be argued together in the spring, were two of the three petitions for review that the justices granted after their private conference on Friday. The justices agreed to hear the case of an inmate from Texas who is seeking federal post-conviction assistance. The PSJVTA is applicable regardless of when an act of terrorism took place, if the PLO or PA made payments after the law’s enactment to the families terrorists responsible for the deaths or injury of U.S. citizens. A group of U.S. residents injured in terror attacks in Israel and the survivors of U.S. victims of such attacks filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Judge George Daniels in 2004. U.S. District judge George Daniels determined his court had jurisdiction over both the PLO, and the PA. The Anti-Terrorism Act automatically tripled that amount to $655 million. The court ruled that the PLO, and the PA, did not have enough contacts with the United States for them to be sued in connection with terrorist attacks. The 2nd Circuit, while emphasizing the “unquestionably horrifying” nature of the terror attacks, ruled again that it did not have jurisdiction over the cases of the victims. The court of appeals explained that the activities that trigger jurisdiction under PSJVTA cannot be “reasonably interpreted” to show that the PLO or PA “consented” that they would be subject to US courts.
The entire 2nd Circuit declined reconsidering the question. Four judges dissented from that decision, in an opinion by Judge Steven Menashi that characterized the issue as one of “exceptional importance.”
Both the federal government (which had joined the cases to defend the constitutionality of the PSJVTA) and the victims came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to take up the question. The victims told the justices that the lower court’s decision was “more than dangerous” but was in fact “flat wrong.” Moreover, they added, the court of appeals “hamstrung Congress on matters involving foreign affairs and national security.”
The federal government echoed those arguments, arguing that “Congress’s judgment that the PSJVTA is an important measure to further U.S. interests and protect and compensate U.S. nationals.”
The PLO and PA countered that the 2nd Circuit’s rulings have only a 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 event, they added, U.S. courts will continue to have jurisdiction over cases brought under the ATA “where attacks are targeted at America or U.S. citizens, or are planned or financed in the United States.”
In a brief unsigned order, the justices agreed on Friday to take up both the victims’ case and that of the federal government and consolidated them for one hour of oral argument.
The justices also agreed to hear Rivers v. Lumpkin, in which they will decide whether and in what circumstances the federal law that strictly limits the circumstances in which an inmate can file a second petition for federal post-conviction relief prohibits an inmate from seeking to amend his original petition while it is pending on appeal. The justices will make more orders at their private conference on Monday morning. This list of orders is expected to be primarily orders denying review, and not to add any new cases to 2024-25 docket.
