Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: April 1, 2025
Decided: June 20, 2025
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch (in part and in judgment)

Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued on April 1, 2025.

The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Neil Gorsuch joined in Part II.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the PSJVTA violates the Fifth Amendment."[2]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Miriam Fuld, et al.
    • Respondent: Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Gassan Adnan Baloul (Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP), Mitchell Rand Berger (Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP)

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez:

    “

    A group of United States citizens who were injured in terror attacks in Israel, along with the estates and survivors of U.S. citizens killed in such attacks, filed a lawsuit in 2004 against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PLO, founded in 1964, conducts Palestine’s foreign affairs and serves as a Permanent Observer to the United Nations, while the PA was established under the 1993 Oslo Accords to serve as the interim governing body for parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The plaintiffs sought damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act for the defendants’ alleged involvement in these attacks. At trial, a jury found the defendants liable for six terror attacks and awarded $218.5 million in damages (automatically trebled to $655.5 million under the Anti-Terrorism Act), but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated this judgment in 2016, finding that U.S. courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA.

    In 2019, Congress enacted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. This law deemed the PLO and PA to have consented to personal jurisdiction in U.S. courts if they engaged in certain conduct after the law’s enactment: either making payments to families of deceased terrorists or designees of imprisoned terrorists who harmed U.S. nationals, or conducting various activities within the United States (with some exceptions for UN-related activities). After the district court found that the defendants had made qualifying payments following the Act’s enactment, the Second Circuit ultimately concluded that this consent provision violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[4]

    		”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 20, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
    • April 1, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • December 6, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • July 3, 2024: Miriam Fuld, et al. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • September 8, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, noting that the PSJVTA provisions violated the Due Process Clause.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the PSJVTA violates the Fifth Amendment.[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Neil Gorsuch joined in Part II.[1]

    Opinion

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion of the court.[1]

    “ The PSJVTA [Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act] reasonably ties the assertion of federal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct that involves the United States and implicates sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. We hold that the statute’s provision for personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The judgments of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit are reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[4] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Neil Gorsuch joined in Part II.[1]

    “ The Court properly holds that the personal-jurisdiction provisions of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), §903, 133 Stat. 3082–3085, 18 U. S. C. §§2333, 2334, do not violate respondents’ claimed rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See ante, 14–21. In reaching this conclusion, the majority recognizes that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “minimum contacts standard” does not apply to the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Ante, at 12. But, rather than decide what standard does apply, the Court holds only that the Fifth Amendment at least permits a statute such as the PSJVTA that “ties federal jurisdiction to conduct closely related to the United States that implicates important foreign policy concerns.” Ante, at 14. The Court leaves for another day the task of defining “the Fifth Amendment’s outer limits on the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts.” Ibid.

    I would take a different approach. When interpreting constitutional provisions, we must look to “the text of the Constitution” as well as “historical evidence from the framing” that can illuminate “the intent of those who drafted and ratified it.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U. S. 334, 370 (1995) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). The critical question in these cases is what boundaries the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee, as originally understood, places on the Federal Government’s power to extend personal jurisdiction over respondents. Historical evidence demonstrates that the answer is “none.” “Because the majority has adopted an analysis that is largely unconnected to the Constitution’s text and history, I concur only in the judgment.” Id., at 371.[4]

    		”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "MIRIAM FULD, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION, ET AL. 24-20," June 20, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "U.S. Supreme Court", "24-20 FULD V. PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION" December 6, 2024
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24-20," accessed January 17, 2025
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 1, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 1, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fuld_v._Palestine_Liberation_Organization&oldid=10419478"