Docket 24-20
Fuld
DecidedJun 20, 2025
7-2decision
Source: CourtListener.
Congress can require PLO and Palestinian Authority to face U.S. terrorism lawsuits
Impact6/10
What it does
The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same "minimum contacts" limits on federal courts that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts, because the federal government has broader sovereign authority than any individual state. The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision is constitutional because it ties the PLO's and PA's exposure to U.S. lawsuits to specific conduct — payments to convicted terrorists and maintaining a U.S. presence — that is closely connected to U.S. foreign policy interests. The Second Circuit's ruling striking down the law was reversed, and the terrorism lawsuits may now proceed.
Who benefits
American citizens and their families who were injured or killed in acts of international terrorism and are seeking civil damages under the Antiterrorism Act against the PLO and Palestinian Authority.
Who is affected
The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, which can now be required to defend themselves in U.S. federal courts in civil terrorism lawsuits if they make payments to imprisoned terrorists or their families, or if they maintain offices or conduct activities on U.S. soil.
Practical impact
The Sokolow plaintiffs — American victims of terror attacks in Israel who won a $655.5 million jury verdict in 2015 that was later thrown out for lack of jurisdiction — may now have their case reinstated and proceed toward recovery. Going forward, the PLO and PA face civil liability in U.S. federal courts under the Antiterrorism Act so long as they engage in the conduct specified by the PSJVTA, giving American terrorism victims a viable legal forum that had been closed to them since 2016.
Majority — Roberts
Joined by: Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
The majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment's "minimum contacts" standard — which limits how far state courts can reach to bring in out-of-state defendants — does not automatically apply to federal courts under the Fifth Amendment, because states and the federal government occupy fundamentally different positions of sovereign authority. The Court reasoned that states are constrained by their borders and their equal standing with other states in the federal system, but the federal government has always had nationwide and extraterritorial power, so it would make little sense to cap federal court jurisdiction at the same level as a state court's. Rather than define the absolute outer limits of federal jurisdiction, the Court held that the PSJVTA clearly falls within whatever those limits are, because it ties jurisdiction to narrow, specific conduct — terrorist payments and U.S.-based activities — that directly implicates longstanding U.S. foreign policy toward the PLO and PA. The Court also found the law reasonable on its face: the federal government has a compelling interest in giving American terrorism victims a place to seek justice, the PLO and PA are sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades, and the statute gave them clear advance notice that this conduct would expose them to suit.
Dissent reasoning
Justice Thomas, joined in part by Justice Gorsuch, agreed with the outcome but wrote separately to argue the majority's reasoning did not go far enough and was not grounded in the Constitution's text and history. Thomas argued that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as originally understood in 1791, placed no territorial limits whatsoever on Congress's power to extend federal court jurisdiction — any limits that existed came from international law, which Congress always had the power to override by clear statute. He also raised a threshold question the majority did not address: whether the PLO and PA are even "persons" protected by the Fifth Amendment at all, noting that foreign sovereigns, U.S. territories, and municipalities have generally been held to lack such constitutional protections, and it is unclear why foreign nonsovereign governmental bodies should fare better. Thomas concluded that because Congress plainly enacted the PSJVTA and the PLO and PA received notice and an opportunity to be heard, the due process inquiry ends there — no further balancing of contacts or reasonableness is required.
Constitutional question
Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) — which deems the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to have consented to being sued in U.S. courts if they make certain payments to terrorists or maintain a U.S. presence — violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Precedent changed
The Court resolved a long-reserved question by holding that the Fourteenth Amendment's minimum contacts standard does not apply to federal courts under the Fifth Amendment, effectively narrowing the practical reach of International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) in the federal court context.