Docket 24-20
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
DecidedJun 20, 2025
9-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court upholds federal law letting terrorism-victim lawsuits proceed against the PLO and Palestinian Authority
What it does
The ruling holds that the Fifth Amendment does not require federal courts to apply the same "minimum contacts" personal jurisdiction test that applies to state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment. It upholds a 2019 law (the PSJVTA) that lets American terrorism victims sue the PLO and Palestinian Authority in U.S. courts when those entities pay money to imprisoned attackers or their families, or when they operate on U.S. soil.
Who benefits
American citizens and their families who were injured or killed by acts of international terrorism and are suing the PLO or Palestinian Authority for damages under the Antiterrorism Act.
Who is affected
The Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, which can now be sued in U.S. federal courts based on their payments to imprisoned attackers or families of deceased attackers, or their U.S.-based activities.
Practical impact
American terrorism victims and their families can now pursue previously stalled ATA lawsuits against the PLO and Palestinian Authority in U.S. courts, including reviving cases like the long-running Sokolow litigation that had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The ruling also establishes that federal courts assessing personal jurisdiction under federal statutes need not apply the same minimum-contacts test used for state courts, potentially affecting other federal statutes that authorize nationwide or extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign defendants.
Majority reasoning
The Court reasoned that the Fourteenth Amendment's minimum-contacts test exists partly to protect "interstate federalism"—keeping states from overreaching into each other's sovereign spheres—a concern that simply does not exist when it's the single national government exercising authority, since the federal government alone has nationwide and international reach. Because the Fifth Amendment governs a fundamentally different sovereign than the states, the Court declined to import the same minimum-contacts standard into it, allowing for a more flexible test better suited to the federal government's broader authority. The Court found the PSJVTA satisfies whatever the Fifth Amendment does require because it narrowly ties jurisdiction to specific conduct closely connected to the United States—payments incentivizing terrorism against Americans, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—reflecting a deliberate, targeted judgment by Congress and the President on sensitive foreign policy matters entitled to judicial deference. Even applying a Fourteenth-Amendment-style reasonableness check, the Court found the law reasonable: the government has an exceedingly strong interest in providing American terror victims a forum, victims have a strong interest in seeking relief, and the PLO and PA—sophisticated entities with billion-dollar budgets and decades of experience litigating in the U.S.—cannot claim unfair surprise or hardship.
Constitutional question
Does a federal law that deems the PLO and Palestinian Authority to have consented to being sued in U.S. courts, based on specific conduct like paying money to imprisoned terrorists or operating in the U.S., violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that the federal government won't deprive anyone of rights without due process?
Precedent changed
The Court declined to extend the Fourteenth Amendment minimum-contacts framework from International Shoe Co. v. Washington and its progeny (e.g., World-Wide Volkswagen, Bristol-Myers Squibb) to the Fifth Amendment context, resolving a question those cases had explicitly left open.