SCOTUS green lights terror victims’ lawsuits against Palestinian leadership groups

Though recent years have seen much discussion of the sharp ideological divide at the U.S. Supreme Court, there have been a number of instances during the current term in which unanimity has emerged.

In a 9-0 opinion released last week, the justices at the high court gave the green light to American terror victims to sue Palestinian leadership groups for damages by seeking relief in U.S. courtrooms, as The Hill reports.

Debate settled

At issue in the case was the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) and a contention that the exercise of rights under it would violate due process rights of both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in that it would force the groups to concede federal court authority over disputes with Americans.

All nine justices agreed that the 2019 legislation does not violate due process in the manner alleged in the case.

Writing for the majority was Chief Justice John Roberts, and the opinion effectively reversed the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision that found the statute to deny the PA and PLO fair legal process, and the ruling also directed that lower court to conduct additional proceedings consistent with the high court’s determination.

Roberts wrote, “It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to compensation.”

He also explained, as the Times of Israel noted, that Congress and the president enacted the statute based on a “considered judgment to subject the PLO and PA to liability in US courts as part of a comprehensive legal response to ‘halt, deter and disrupt’ acts of international terrorism that threaten the life and limb of American citizens.”

Concurrence goes further

A concurrence in the case was penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, and it was joined in part by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

In it, Thomas suggested that he would have taken the analysis even further than the majority did, so as to explore the appropriate boundaries of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Thomas mused, “I am skeptical that entities such as the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority enjoy any constitutional rights at all, let alone qualify as ‘person[s]’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.”

In response to the ruling, as the Times of Israel added, Kent Yalowitz, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, stated that his clients, “U.S. families who had loved ones maimed or murdered in PLO-sponsored terror attacks, have been waiting for justice for many years.”

He went on, “I am very hopeful that the case will soon be resolved without subjecting these families to further protracted and unnecessary litigation.”

Hopefully, those involved in further proceedings in the court below will heed the justices’ words and respect the unanimity with which they were rendered.

Then, perhaps, the interests of justice will, at long last, be served after decades of legal battles to hold terrorists accountable.