Supreme Court won’t reinstate a $650 million award for terror victims

DCNFKevin Daley, DCNF

The U.S. Supreme Court will not reinstate a $650 million award secured by American terror victims against the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

The justices turned down an appeal Monday from 11 families who won the judgement in a Manhattan federal trial court, which the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned. A bipartisan group of lawmakers warn the courts are effectively eviscerating a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue the perpetrators in American courts.

(Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992 (ATA) gives federal courts power to hear civil cases against terror syndicates. A coalition of American terror victims and their families sued the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2004 under the 1992 law. The plaintiffs were killed or injured in a series of attacks in and around Jerusalem during the al Aqsa Intifada. The PA and the PLO either carried out the attacks or furnished material support for the perpetrators.

A jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded $218 million, which was raised to $655 million under a provision of the ATA that triples such judgements.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision, finding federal courts cannot hear cases against the PA and the PLO, since their connection to the United States is tenuous and their agents did not set out to kill Americans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reached the same conclusion in related litigation.

Lawmakers say the ruling substantially neuters the ATA. The U.S. House of Representatives filed an amicus (or “friend-of-the-court”) brief urging the justices to take the case, warning the 2nd Circuit’s decision dramatically narrows the range of actions that may be brought under the 1992 law.

“The decision below effectively nullifies the ATA, contravening the considered judgment of the political branches and hobbling an important tool in our nation’s war on terror,” their brief reads.

“The court of appeals’ decision renders the ATA lifeless with respect to the vast majority of circumstances it was enacted to address,” it adds.

The Trump administration filed its own brief advising the Court to let the 2nd Circuit’s decision stand.

(Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court found in February that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which protects the property of foreign governments, does not have an exemption for state-sponsors of terror. The decision makes it more difficult for terror victims to recover damages from governments that support radical groups.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to [email protected].

 For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles