Supreme Court revives lawsuits seeking to hold Palestine Liberation Organization liable for terrorist attacks
The justices on Friday unanimously overturned a ruling from a federal appeals court that Congress violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process by enacting a 2019 law that expanded the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to hear terrorism-related suits against the PLO and PA.
In
an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts
, the high court cited the history of U.S. interaction with the Palestinian entities and the 'sensitive foreign policy concerns' behind Congress' choice to authorize federal courts to hear the terrorism-related cases. Congress' decision to expand the courts' jurisdiction in these circumstances does not violate due process-based limits on the reach of U.S. courts, Roberts said.
'It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that
ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to … compensation' under U.S. law, Roberts wrote.
Roberts insisted the ruling was not a sweeping one signaling that Congress could subject any foreign entity to litigation in the U.S. over any conduct at any time.
The 2019 law, known as the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not put the Palestinian entities 'at broad risk of being haled into U.S. courts for myriad civil liability actions,' Roberts emphasized. 'Rather, the statute applies only to … a narrow category of claims that provide civil remedies only for Americans injured by acts of international terrorism.'
The high court's decision reinstates lawsuits that were brought on behalf of
Americans killed or injured in a 2001 shooting attack in Jerusalem, the bombing of a Hebrew University cafeteria in
that city in 2002, a bus bombing there in 2004 and
a stabbing attack outside a shopping center in Gush Etzion
, Israel, in 2018.
The suits contend that the PLO and PA's practice of making payments to the families of Palestinians killed or imprisoned in connection with acts of terrorism encouraged such acts and rendered the PLO and PA financially liable for damages sought by victims and their families.
A PA spokesperson did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the ruling.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled in 2023
that Congress' tweak to the law four years earlier, attempting to give the courts 'personal jurisdiction' over the PLO and PA, was unconstitutional.
Roberts' opinion was fully joined by six other justices — all three of the court's liberals and three of the conservatives. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined their colleagues in overturning the 2nd Circuit ruling, but adopted different rationales for doing so.
'The Federal Government has always possessed the power to extend its jurisdiction beyond the Nation's borders,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. Gorsuch joined that portion of Thomas' concurrence.
In another passage Gorsuch did not join, Thomas went further. 'I am skeptical that entities such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) enjoy any constitutional rights at all,' Thomas wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate passes Trump's major policy bill with $150 billion for the DOD
The Senate passed a massive party-line spending package Tuesday, including a one-time surge in defense spending the Pentagon is counting on for its upcoming fiscal year 2026 budget. By a vote of 51-50 — with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie — the chamber advanced the vast tax, healthcare and border security bill President Donald Trump has championed as key to his legislative agenda. That 940-page 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' also features $150 billion in funding for the military, which would go toward shipbuilding, the Golden Dome homeland missile defense project, munitions and other key priorities. The bill next goes back to the House for final consideration. Trump has set a deadline of July 4 to pass the spending package out of that chamber, though some lawmakers in the House have already said they're unlikely to approve the bill before the end of the week. The Pentagon has argued this package should be counted as part of the DOD's overall defense budget plan for the coming year, and defense officials moved spending priorities usually reserved for its base spending plan into the one-time package. In its delayed spending request last week, the Defense Department issued an $848 million base budget request, which is a cut when accounting for inflation. That said, the Pentagon is counting on $113 billion in immediate funding from the supplemental spending bill in Congress, bringing the total for military spending closer to $960 billion. Still, many top Republicans and Democrats in Congress have argued that the unusual arrangement will cause unnecessary confusion for the Pentagon and the defense industry responsible for major weapons programs. In a briefing to describe the funding request, senior defense and military officials countered this argument, saying the immediate surge in funding may reassure some of these companies, which are accustomed to Congress starting the fiscal year on temporary spending plans known as continuing resolutions. One official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration would likely keep military funding close to $1 trillion for next year as well, though it hasn't yet decided on an appropriate baseline. If not, the Defense Department will face extremely difficult choices when deciding how to factor the priorities included in the one-time spending package back into its yearly budget.
Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tax cuts, work requirements and asylum fees: Here's what's inside the Senate's version of Trump's bill
Senate Republicans coalesced to pass President Donald Trump's colossal "big, beautiful bill" early Tuesday morning. Senate Republican leaders and the White House have pitched the legislative behemoth as a means to turbocharge the economy, root out waste, fraud and abuse in a slew of federal programs, and to make crucial investments in defense and Trump's border and immigration priorities. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have bashed the bill as a deficit-ballooning monstrosity that would boot millions of Americans from their healthcare and rollback key Medicaid, food nutrition assistance and green energy provisions ushered in by the Obama and Biden administrations. So what's in Trump's bill? Below, Fox News Digital breaks down key proposals in Senate Republicans' "big, beautiful bill." The bill seeks to permanently extend Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which a House GOP memo from earlier this year said would avoid a 22% tax hike for American families at the end of this year. It also includes tax cuts specifically tailored to the middle and working-class, like allowing people to deduct taxes on up to $25,000 of tipped wages. That deduction would begin to phase out for people making $150,000 per year or $300,000 as a married couple. The Senate bill would also allow people to deduct up to $12,500 in overtime pay under the same income guidelines. Both the tipped and overtime wage deductions would be available through 2028. Another temporary tax break through 2028 would allow people to deduct interest paid on their car loans. For seniors aged 65 and older, the bill would give an additional $6,000 tax deduction through 2028. The legislation increases the current cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, a benefit primarily geared toward people living in high-cost-of-living areas like New York City, Los Angeles and their surrounding suburbs. The current SALT deduction cap would be raised to $40,000 for five years, before reverting down to $10,000 – where it stands now – for the subsequent five years. Blue state Republicans fought for the increase, arguing it's an existential issue for a bloc of lawmakers whose victories were decisive for the House GOP majority. However, Republicans from redder areas have criticized SALT deductions as giveaways to high-tax states as a reward for their progressive policies. Medicaid cuts have proven the biggest pain point among Republicans, though many of the changes that have been proposed are widely popular. Cuts to the widely used healthcare program account for roughly $1 trillion, according to recent analyses from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO found that under the Senate GOP's plan, nearly 12 million Americans could lose their health insurance. Stricter work requirements have been the crown jewel for the GOP. The bill would require able-bodied, childless adults between the ages of 18 and 64 to work at least 80 hours a month to maintain their benefits, or by participating in community service, going to school or engaging in a work program. However, there are more divisive changes, like tweaks to the Medicaid provider tax rate. The rate change would, year-by-year, lower the provider tax in Medicaid expansion states from 6% to 3.5%. The plan was tweaked to comport with Senate rules and now starts in fiscal year 2028. Just ahead of the bill's passage in the Senate, Republicans doubled a rural hospital stabilization fund pushed for by lawmakers concerned that the changes to the provider rate would shutter rural hospitals around the country. That fund was boosted to $50 billion, half of which will be distributed through grants, in chunks of $10 billion each year. Republicans also removed a ban on Medicaid benefits funding transgender healthcare, largely because it would not have complied with Senate rules. Senate Republicans' bill also includes cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. Like tweaks to Medicaid, Republicans pushed for work requirements for SNAP for able-bodied, working-age adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years old, and for parents with children over the age of 7. The bill would also shift some of the cost burden of the program from the federal government to the states. Currently, the federal government covers the costs of SNAP, but states with a higher payment error rate would cover a greater share of benefit costs. If the error rate is 6% or higher, states would be subject to a sliding scale that could see their share of allotments rise to a range of between 5% and 15%. However, in last-minute deal-making, Senate Republicans delayed SNAP work requirements for states that have a payment error rate of 13%, like Alaska, or higher for one whole year. The bill raises the borrowing limit on the U.S. government's $36.2 trillion national debt by $5 trillion. A failure to raise that limit – also called the debt ceiling – before the U.S. government runs out of cash to pay its obligations could result in a downgrade in the country's credit rating and potential turmoil in financial markets. Trump has made it a priority for congressional Republicans to deal with the debt ceiling and avoid a national credit default. A bipartisan agreement struck in 2023 suspended the debt ceiling until January 2025. Multiple projections show the U.S. is poised to run out of cash to pay its debts by sometime this summer. While the bill cuts spending on Medicaid and other domestic programs, it includes billions of dollars in new funding for defense programs and federal immigration enforcement. The bill provides $25 billion to build a Golden Dome missile defense system, similar to Israel's Iron Dome. It would also include $45.6 billion to complete Trump's border wall, and $4.1 billion to hire new border agents. The bill would also surge an additional $45 billion to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for the detention of illegal immigrants. An additional $15 billion would be directed toward modernizing the U.S. nuclear triad and $29 billion for shipbuilding and the Maritime Industrial Base. Several new provisions were included in the bill that hike, or create, fees for migrants who are seeking asylum, a work permit or are apprehended, among others. Among the list of new fees is a new, $100 fee for those seeking asylum. That becomes an annual fee for every year that the asylum application remains pending. There is also a new, $1,000 minimum fee for immigrants granted temporary entry into the U.S. on the grounds of "humanitarian or significant public interest." For migrants caught trying to illegally enter the country through a port of entry, a new minimum $5,000 fee would come into play. There is another new $5,000 fee for migrants that are arrested after being ordered to be removed. There are also new fees of between $500 and $1,500 for migrants whose immigration status is changed by a judge, or who appeal for a status change. Then there is a new, $30 Electronic Visa Update System fee for certain Chinese nationals. They also have to maintain biographic and travel information in the country online.
Newsweek
42 minutes ago
- Newsweek
House Democrats Move to Ban ICE Agents From Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Democratic lawmakers are pushing forward to advance legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face masks or coverings during immigration enforcement operations. The No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act would require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification, with limited exceptions for public safety threats. "The images we've seen of masked, anonymous people grabbing residents off the street in broad daylight don't make our communities safer," California Democratic Representative Laura Friedman told Newsweek in a statement. Why It Matters ICE has been facing growing scrutiny under the Trump administration for allowing its agents to carry out targeted enforcement operations in plain clothes and face coverings. ICE officials argue that the masks are crucial to protect the identities of agents and their families from death threats. The agency has been thrust into the national spotlight as President Donald Trump directs his administration to remove millions of migrants without legal status as part of a hardline mass deportation policy. Federal agents detain a man after attending a court hearing at immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 01, 2025 in New York City. S Federal agents detain a man after attending a court hearing at immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 01, 2025 in New York City. S Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images What To Know Under the bill, agents would be required to wear clothing that clearly displays their name and shows that they are affiliated with ICE. The legislation allows exceptions only in specific situations, such as when an agent faces an imminent threat to life or "serious bodily harm", or when protective gear is needed for safety or medical reasons. When an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document it within 48 hours to determine if it was appropriate and take disciplinary action if it was not. The Department of Homeland Security would be responsible for setting up procedures to ensure compliance, including possible disciplinary measures for violations and a process to accept and review complaints through its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. DHS would also be required to submit an annual report to Congress detailing any disciplinary actions and complaints received related to anonymous agents. The bill defines what counts as a facial covering, what activities qualify as an enforcement operation, and clarifies that the requirements apply throughout the United States and its territories. The law would take effect 30 days after it is enacted. "They make Americans and hardworking members of our community who've lived here for decades afraid to go to work, to school, to the doctor, to the park," Friedman said. "This legislation is about restoring accountability to immigration enforcement. In a democracy, law enforcement should protect the public — not terrorize it," she added. The legislation is being sponsored by Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez, who introduced it on June 12, 2025, with a number of other House Democrats signed on as cosponsors. What People Are Saying Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." What Happens Next As it stands, the legislation is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled Congress.
