US Supreme Court upholds law allowing Palestinian authorities to be sued over attacks
FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld on Friday a statute passed by Congress to facilitate lawsuits against Palestinian authorities by Americans killed or injured in attacks abroad as plaintiffs pursue monetary damages for violence years ago in Israel and the West Bank.
The 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court's decision that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, violated the rights of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization to due process under the U.S. Constitution.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the ruling, said the 2019 jurisdictional law comported with due process rights enshrined in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.
"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 a federal law known as the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, Roberts wrote.
The U.S. government and a group of American victims and their families had appealed the lower court's decision that struck down a provision of the law.
Among the plaintiffs are families who in 2015 won a $655 million judgment in a civil case alleging that the Palestinian organizations were responsible for a series of shootings and bombings around Jerusalem from 2002 to 2004. They also include relatives of Ari Fuld, a Jewish settler in the Israel-occupied West Bank who was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian in 2018.
"The plaintiffs, U.S. families who had loved ones maimed or murdered in PLO-sponsored terror attacks, have been waiting for justice for many years," said Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
"I am very hopeful that the case will soon be resolved without subjecting these families to further protracted and unnecessary litigation," Yalowitz added.
The ongoing violence involving Israel and the Palestinians served as a backdrop to the case.
U.S. courts for years have grappled over whether they have jurisdiction in cases involving the Palestinian Authority and PLO for actions taken abroad.
Under the language at issue in the 2019 law, the PLO and Palestinian Authority automatically "consent" to jurisdiction if they conduct certain activities in the United States or make payments to people who attack Americans.
Roberts in Friday's ruling wrote that Congress and the president enacted the jurisdictional law based on their "considered judgment to subject the PLO and PA (Palestinian Authority) to liability in U.S. courts as part of a comprehensive legal response to 'halt, deter and disrupt' acts of international terrorism that threaten the life and limb of American citizens."
New York-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in 2022 that the law violated the due process rights of the PLO and Palestinian Authority. The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.
President Joe Biden's administration initiated the government's appeal, which subsequently was taken up by President Donald Trump's administration. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 1. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
Trump to host Netanyahu at the White House on July 7, US official says, World News
US President Donald Trump plans to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on July 7, a US official said, as the US president pressed for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and the return of remaining hostages. Ron Dermer, a top adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is in Washington this week to meet with officials at the White House, Trump's spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a press briefing on Monday. An Israeli official in Washington also confirmed the meeting next Monday. The two leaders are expected to discuss Iran, Gaza, Syria and other regional challenges, the official added. The visit was first reported by Axios. Israel ramped up its attacks on northern Gaza on Monday, a day after Trump urged an end to the 20-month-old war, posting on social media: "Make the deal in Gaza, get the hostages back." Israeli strikes killed at least 60 people across Gaza on Monday in some of the heaviest attacks in weeks. Leavitt told reporters the Trump administration was in constant communication with the Israeli government, saying Trump viewed ending the war in Gaza and returning remaining hostages held by the Palestinian militant group Hamas as a top priority. She said it was heartbreaking to see images coming from both Gaza and Israel, but Trump's main priority was securing the release of the remaining hostages. The war began when Hamas fighters stormed in to Israel on Oct 7, 2023, killed 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took 251 hostages back to Gaza in a surprise attack that led to Israel's single deadliest day. Israel's subsequent military assault has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to the Gaza health ministry, displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population and plunged the enclave into a humanitarian crisis. [[nid:719633]]
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
France's Macron calls tariffs imposed by powerful countries a form of 'blackmail', World News
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday (June 30) that tariffs levied by powerful countries were often a form of "blackmail" rather than instruments to rebalance trade. His comments during a speech at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Seville, Spain, came with the European Union negotiating a trade deal with the United States ahead of a July 9 deadline, though he did not specifically refer to the United States or US President Donald Trump. "We need to restore freedom and equity to international trade, much more than barriers and tariffs, which are devised by the strongest, and which are often used as instruments of blackmail, not at all as instruments of rebalancing," Macron said. He also urged support — and a rethinking — of the World Trade Organisation to bring it in line with goals to fight inequality and climate change. "Bringing back a trade war and tariffs at this moment in the life of the planet is an aberration, especially when I see the tariffs that are being imposed on countries that are just beginning their economic takeoff," Macron said. Trump unveiled sweeping global tariffs in April in which he said countries would face taxes on imports into the United States ranging from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, though he later reversed course and mostly lowered them for 90 days. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday rejected Macron's characterisation, insisting that tariffs were an effective tool to rebuild US manufacturing. She said Trump remained in discussions on trade to aid American workers. "Europe and the rest of the world might not be used to that, but President Trump is back in town and he's going to do what's right for our people and our country," she said. The United Nations trade agency had said the tariffs could have a catastrophic impact on developing countries, with some of the world's least developed, such as Lesotho, Cambodia, Laos, Madagascar and Myanmar, facing some of the highest levies. Macron, a vocal critic of Washington's tariff campaign, has also said it is an aberration to ask Europeans to spend more on defence while launching a trade war. [[nid:719682]]
AsiaOne
2 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges, World News
President Donald Trump's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for US citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on Sunday (July 27), a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges. During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, US District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the US Supreme Court's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits. Both judges asked US Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect. Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday. In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday. The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide. But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions. William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. "They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell said. Trump's executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. In Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out. Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognise that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then. "Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the hearing. Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10. Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order. "It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said [[nid:719410]]
