Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization

606 U.S. 1 (2025) · Supreme Court of the United States · June 20, 2025 · No. 24–20

Summary

This Supreme Court decision addresses whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing personal jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority in civil suits under the Antiterrorism Act. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not incorporate the Fourteenth Amendment's minimum contacts standard for state courts, allowing a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with federal sovereign authority. Finding that the PSJVTA reasonably ties jurisdiction to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters, the Court reversed the Second Circuit's ruling and upheld the statute's constitutionality.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Writing for the Court
Roberts; Alito; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; Barrett; Jackson; Thomas; Gorsuch
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of the United States
Decision date
June 20, 2025
Docket number
24–20
Procedural posture
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Fuld et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestinian Authority
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

personal jurisdictiondue processforeign affairsstatutory interpretationcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureconstitutional lawforeign affairsstatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the personal‑jurisdiction provision of the PSJVTA violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
  2. Whether the Fifth Amendment incorporates the Fourteenth Amendment minimum‑contacts test for federal courts.

Holdings

  1. The PSJVTA’s personal‑jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction to conduct involving the United States and to sensitive foreign‑policy considerations.

Key quotations

The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. (at 11–25)
We decline to import the Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts standard into the Fifth Amendment. Rather, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the Federal Government's broader sovereign authority. (at 13–16)

Factual background

U.S. nationals injured by acts of international terrorism sued the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, alleging that the organizations paid salaries to terrorists and maintained offices in the United States. Congress enacted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), which deems the organizations consented to personal jurisdiction in ATA cases when they engage in specified conduct. The respondents argued that the PSJVTA’s jurisdictional provision violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Procedural history

The plaintiffs sued the PLO and PA in the Southern District of New York under the Antiterrorism Act. The district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs; the Second Circuit vacated and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Remand instructions

Further consideration in light of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…