|
|
[Craving even more FPM content? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more. Click here to sign up.]
Two cases, to be heard jointly by the Supreme Court, which could potentially bankrupt the Palestinian Authority and the PLO, will be decided in the next few months. More on the cases, and their possible devastating effect on the Palestinian Authority’s finances, can be found here: “Supreme Court to hear case on Palestinian Authority’s ‘martyr’ payments,” by Marc Rod, Jewish Insider, February 10, 2025:
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case in the coming months to decide whether American victims of Palestinian terror attacks can sue the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority for damages based on support for such attacks through the “pay for slay” program that compensates individuals who have carried out attacks as well as their families.These cases raise the question of whether a 2019 act of Congress, asserting jurisdiction over the PA and PLO, is constitutional.
The Supreme Court cases — Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which the court will hear jointly — pertain to a decades-long series of litigation efforts by American terror victims and their families to sue the PLO and the PA.
In one case in 2015, a lower court awarded a group of victims more than $650 million. But the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly ruled as unconstitutional multiple pieces of legislation passed by Congress to assert U.S. jurisdiction over the PLO and PA and enable such lawsuits….
Mark Pinkert, an attorney at Holtzman Vogel who filed the brief on behalf of the groups, told Jewish Insider that, through repeated legislation, Congress has made its intentions clear.
Congress said, ‘We want to make sure victims get access to justice, and we think that civil liability is a really important tool for fighting foreign terrorism,’” Pinkert explained, adding that creating such civil liability is part of Congress’ efforts to end the PA’s payment program….
Pinkert said that the justices’ decision will likely ultimately revolve around questions of whether the Fifth Amendment limits Congress’ ability to pass such legislation; the victims argue that it does not.
Pinkert said that given the court’s current originalist bent, it may favor that interpretation of the intent of the Fifth Amendment, though Supreme Court decisions are often difficult to predict.
He added that, although the Supreme Court is independent, it will be “hard for them to ignore” the strong bipartisan support for PSJVTA and efforts to hold the PA and PLO civilly liable.
“It’s a big deal to strike down a federal statute, and not just any federal statute, but one that has been passed over and over again with bipartisan support and with so many amicus groups supporting the petitioners,” Pinkert said. “On a practical level, I think that’s going to be in the back of the Supreme Court justices’ minds.”
If the Supreme Court decides that the Fifth Amendment does not limit Congress’ ability to pass such legislation, so that the 2019 law, the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), is declared constitutional, the effect will be to allow lawsuits by relatives of victims of Palestinian terrorism against the PA and the PLO, first for supporting terrorism with its “Pay-For-Slay” program and second for being a designated terrorist organization, which would likely bankrupt both. The Court’s conservative majority is almost certain to declare the legislation constitutional.
