Imagine losing a loved one to a senseless act of violence halfway across the globe. The pain is unimaginable, but what if the chance to seek justice in a U.S. courtroom was suddenly within reach? For years, families of Americans harmed by terrorist attacks abroad faced a steep uphill battle to hold perpetrators accountable in U.S. courts. That all changed with a landmark decision from the Supreme Court on June 20, 2025, which breathed new life into their pursuit of justice. This ruling, as I see it, isn’t just a legal victory—it’s a beacon of hope for those grappling with unimaginable loss.
A Game-Changing Supreme Court Decision
In a unanimous 9–0 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that allows Americans injured or killed in terrorist attacks overseas to sue in U.S. courts. This decision overturned a federal appeals court’s earlier ruling, which had argued that U.S. courts lacked the authority to hear cases tied to attacks outside the country. The opinion, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, clarified that the law aligns with the Constitution’s due process protections, offering a clear path for victims to seek compensation.
Why does this matter? For families like those involved in the case, it’s a chance to hold groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) accountable for their alleged roles in attacks. The ruling ensures that U.S. courts remain a viable forum for justice, even when the acts occurred thousands of miles away.
The Legal Battle: Two Cases, One Fight
The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from two consolidated cases: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. PLO. These cases revolved around the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), a law passed in 2019 to amend the Anti-Terrorism Act. The PSJVTA allows victims of attacks against Americans abroad to sue in U.S. courts, specifically targeting entities like the PLO and PA if they provide payments to individuals involved in terrorism.
It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to compensation.
– Chief Justice John Roberts
The PSJVTA was inspired by tragedies like the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer, an American cruise ship passenger killed by PLO hijackers. That case sparked the original Anti-Terrorism Act, and the PSJVTA built on it by deeming groups like the PLO to have “consented” to U.S. jurisdiction if they fund terrorism-related activities. It’s a bold move by lawmakers, and, in my view, a necessary one to close loopholes that previously shielded such groups.
The Heart of the Case: Mariam Fuld’s Story
At the center of this legal saga is Mariam Fuld, who sued the PLO and PA after her husband, Ari Fuld, was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian terrorist near a West Bank shopping mall in 2018. The attack wasn’t an isolated incident—other victims and their families joined the lawsuit, alleging that the PLO and PA incentivized such violence through a “martyrs’ fund” that pays families of individuals killed or imprisoned for attacks against Israel.
After a grueling seven-week trial in a New York federal court, a jury ruled in January 2022 that PLO and PA employees had either planned or participated in the attacks. The plaintiffs, including Fuld, were awarded $218.5 million in damages, which was tripled under federal law to a staggering $655.5 million. It was a monumental victory—until the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in.
The Appeals Court’s Roadblock
In September 2023, the Second Circuit overturned the lower court’s ruling, declaring the PSJVTA unconstitutional. Their reasoning? The PLO and PA were “at home” in Palestine, and the attacks occurred entirely outside U.S. territory, meaning U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction. They also argued that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause prevented Congress from assuming a defendant’s consent to U.S. jurisdiction without a “governmental benefit” in return—like a permit or license.
This decision left victims like Mariam Fuld in limbo. How could a law designed to protect Americans abroad be struck down on technical grounds? It’s moments like these that make you question whether justice is truly accessible, especially when the system seems to prioritize legal nuances over human suffering.
The Supreme Court’s Response
Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion cut through the Second Circuit’s arguments like a knife. He emphasized that the PSJVTA doesn’t violate due process by requiring the PLO and PA to consent to U.S. jurisdiction. Instead, it’s a “narrow jurisdictional provision” tied to a broader U.S. foreign policy goal: ensuring victims of terrorism have a forum to seek justice.
Roberts’ reasoning was clear and pragmatic. The law doesn’t overreach—it targets specific entities engaged in activities that harm Americans. By tying jurisdiction to payments for terrorism, Congress created a mechanism that’s both constitutional and effective. Personally, I find this approach refreshing; it balances legal precision with a commitment to real-world justice.
A Concurring Perspective: Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas offered a concurring opinion, joined in part by Justice Neil Gorsuch, that raised a provocative question: Do entities like the PLO and PA even have constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment? Thomas expressed skepticism, noting that the federal government has long held that such “foreign nonsovereign governmental bodies” may not be protected by the Constitution.
I am skeptical that entities such as the Palestine Liberation Organization enjoy any constitutional rights at all.
– Justice Clarence Thomas
This perspective adds a layer of complexity to the case. If Thomas is right, the PLO and PA’s legal arguments might be even weaker than the Second Circuit suggested. It’s a bold stance, and one that could shape future cases involving foreign entities.
What This Means for Victims
For victims and their families, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a lifeline. It reinstates their ability to pursue justice in U.S. courts, ensuring that groups like the PLO and PA can’t evade accountability by claiming they’re beyond U.S. reach. The cases now return to the Second Circuit for further proceedings, but the Supreme Court’s decision sets a clear precedent.
- Restored Jurisdiction: U.S. courts can hear cases involving overseas attacks against Americans.
- Accountability: Entities funding terrorism face legal consequences in the U.S.
- Compensation: Victims have a renewed chance to secure damages for their losses.
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of this ruling is its human impact. Families like the Fulds can now move forward, knowing the U.S. legal system stands behind them. It’s a reminder that justice, while sometimes delayed, isn’t always out of reach.
Broader Implications
This ruling doesn’t just affect terrorism cases—it could reshape how U.S. courts handle extraterritorial disputes. By affirming Congress’s ability to craft laws that extend U.S. jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has opened the door to similar provisions in other contexts, like human rights abuses or international fraud.
Could this lead to a flood of lawsuits in U.S. courts? Possibly, but the PSJVTA’s narrow focus limits its scope to terrorism-related cases. Still, it’s worth watching how lower courts interpret this precedent in the years to come.
Challenges Ahead
While the ruling is a victory, it’s not the end of the road. The cases will face further scrutiny in the Second Circuit, and enforcing judgments against foreign entities like the PA can be tricky. Collecting damages, especially from groups with limited U.S. assets, often feels like chasing a mirage. Yet, the symbolic and legal weight of these lawsuits can’t be understated.
Another challenge is the geopolitical fallout. Critics might argue that laws like the PSJVTA strain U.S. relations with certain regions or governments. But is diplomacy worth sacrificing justice for American victims? That’s a question policymakers will grapple with moving forward.
A Personal Reflection
As I’ve followed this case, I’ve been struck by the resilience of families like the Fulds. Losing a loved one to terrorism is a wound that never fully heals, yet they’ve fought tirelessly for accountability. This ruling, to me, feels like a small but meaningful step toward closure. It’s a reminder that the law, when wielded thoughtfully, can be a powerful tool for healing.
What’s next for these families? Only time will tell. But for now, the Supreme Court has given them—and others like them—a fighting chance. And that, in my book, is something worth celebrating.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the PSJVTA, allowing victims of overseas terrorism to sue in U.S. courts.
- The ruling overturned a Second Circuit decision that had deemed the law unconstitutional.
- Families like the Fulds now have a renewed chance to seek justice and compensation.
- The decision could influence future cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction.
This case is more than a legal footnote—it’s a testament to the power of perseverance and the U.S. commitment to protecting its citizens, no matter where they are. As the legal process unfolds, one thing is clear: justice is a marathon, not a sprint.
