The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have filed an emergency application with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, seeking an immediate stay of a $655.5 million terrorism judgment. The application follows a contentious ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which revived a decade-old award that had previously been declared legally void due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. This legal battle, which has spanned more than two decades, represents a pivotal moment in the intersection of international diplomacy, national security legislation, and the constitutional limits of U.S. judicial power over foreign entities.
The petitioners argue that the Second Circuit overstepped its authority by applying retroactive legislation designed specifically to bypass constitutional protections. At the heart of the dispute is whether Congress can legislate "deemed consent" to jurisdiction for foreign entities that do not otherwise meet the constitutional "minimum contacts" required for U.S. courts to exercise power over them. The PLO and PA contend that allowing the judgment to proceed would cause irreparable harm to their financial stability and diplomatic functions, while fundamentally undermining the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The Genesis of Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization
The litigation originated in 2004 when a group of American families, led by Mark Sokolow, filed suit under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA). The plaintiffs sought damages for a series of six terrorist attacks that occurred in Jerusalem between 2002 and 2004 during the Second Intifada. These attacks, which included suicide bombings and machine-gun ambushes, resulted in the deaths of 33 people, including several U.S. citizens, and injured hundreds more.
The plaintiffs alleged that the PLO and the PA provided material support, including funding and logistical resources, to the perpetrators of these attacks. In 2015, following a high-profile trial in the Southern District of New York, a jury found the Palestinian entities liable for the attacks. The jury awarded the families $218.5 million in damages, a figure that was automatically trebled to $655.5 million under the mandatory provisions of the ATA.
However, the victory for the victims’ families was short-lived. In 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment, ruling that U.S. courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA. The court cited the Supreme Court’s precedents in Daimler AG v. Bauman and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, which established that a defendant must be "at home" in a forum for a court to exercise general jurisdiction. Because the attacks occurred abroad and the defendants were based in the West Bank, the court found there was no specific or general jurisdiction to uphold the award.
Legislative Intervention and the PSJVTA
The 2016 dismissal prompted a significant legislative response from the U.S. Congress, which sought to ensure that American victims of terrorism could hold foreign entities accountable in domestic courts. This resulted in a series of legislative maneuvers aimed at narrowing the jurisdictional gap exposed by the Sokolow case.
In 2018, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), which stipulated that any entity receiving certain types of U.S. foreign aid would be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in ATA cases. In response, the Palestinian Authority declined hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. security and economic assistance to avoid being hauled back into court.
To counter this avoidance, Congress passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) in 2019. The PSJVTA established that certain activities—such as making payments to the families of individuals imprisoned for terrorism-related offenses (often referred to as "martyr payments") or maintaining offices in the United States—would constitute "deemed consent" to jurisdiction for ATA lawsuits. Crucially, the Act included a provision intended to apply retroactively to cases that had been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, such as Sokolow.
The Second Circuit’s Reversal and the Current Appeal
Based on the newly enacted PSJVTA, the Second Circuit revisited the Sokolow judgment. In a landmark ruling, the appellate court determined that the PLO and PA’s continued activities and their status under the new law allowed for the reinstatement of the $655.5 million award. The court reasoned that Congress had the authority to define the terms under which foreign entities interact with the U.S. legal system.
In their emergency application to Justice Sotomayor, who oversees the Second Circuit as Circuit Justice, the PLO and PA argue that the Second Circuit’s decision creates a dangerous precedent. They assert that the "deemed consent" framework is a legal fiction that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
"The Second Circuit has attempted to breathe life into a judgment that was dead and buried," the application states. "By allowing Congress to manufacture consent where none exists, the court has stripped foreign entities of the fundamental protections that underpin the American judicial system."
The petitioners further argue that the retroactive application of the PSJVTA to a final judgment that had already been vacated violates the principle of separation of powers, effectively allowing the legislature to perform a judicial function by overturning a court’s final determination on jurisdiction.
Chronology of the Sokolow Litigation
The timeline of this case reflects the evolving legal landscape regarding international terrorism and sovereign immunity:
- 2002–2004: Six terrorist attacks occur in Israel, targeting civilians and killing U.S. nationals.
- 2004: Families of the victims file suit against the PLO and PA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- February 2015: A jury finds the defendants liable, awarding $218.5 million (trebled to $655.5 million).
- August 2016: The Second Circuit vacates the judgment, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction under the Daimler standard.
- 2018: Congress passes the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA).
- 2019: Congress passes the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) to close jurisdictional loopholes.
- 2022–2025: Extensive litigation follows regarding the constitutionality of the PSJVTA and its application to the Sokolow plaintiffs.
- Early 2026: The Second Circuit reinstates the $655.5 million judgment.
- July 30, 2026: The PLO and PA file an emergency stay application with Justice Sotomayor.
Financial and Diplomatic Implications
The enforcement of a $655.5 million judgment would have profound implications for the Palestinian Authority, which is already grappling with a chronic fiscal crisis. The PA relies heavily on international aid and the clearance of tax revenues collected by Israel. Legal experts suggest that the seizure of PA assets in the United States or the freezing of bank accounts could lead to a total collapse of the Palestinian government’s ability to provide essential services in the West Bank.
Furthermore, the case has significant diplomatic ramifications. The U.S. State Department has historically navigated a delicate balance between supporting victims of terrorism and maintaining a functional relationship with the Palestinian Authority as a partner in regional security coordination. A massive, enforceable judgment could force the U.S. government into a position where it must choose between upholding a court order and preventing the destabilization of a key regional actor.
Attorneys for the victims’ families, however, argue that the financial burden on the PA is a direct consequence of its alleged support for terrorism. "For twenty years, these families have waited for justice," said a spokesperson for the plaintiffs. "The law is clear: if you fund the murder of Americans, you are subject to the laws of the United States. The PA cannot accept the benefits of international standing while evading the consequences of its actions."
Analysis of the "Deemed Consent" Doctrine
The legal community is closely watching the Supreme Court’s response to this application, as it touches upon the "deemed consent" doctrine. Historically, consent to jurisdiction was established through explicit agreements or by a party’s physical presence in a forum. The PSJVTA’s approach—whereby certain unrelated behaviors are legally defined as consent—is a novel expansion of judicial reach.
If Justice Sotomayor or the full Supreme Court allows the judgment to stand, it could open the door for similar legislation targeting other foreign entities or even foreign corporations. Critics argue this would lead to "jurisdictional chaos," where foreign entities are forced to choose between engaging in any form of activity related to the U.S. or risking massive legal liabilities in American courts for actions occurring entirely on foreign soil.
Conversely, proponents of the law argue that the ATA and its subsequent amendments are vital tools in the global fight against terrorism. They contend that the unique nature of international terrorism requires flexible jurisdictional standards to ensure that victims are not left without recourse.
Potential Outcomes and Next Steps
Justice Sotomayor has several options. She could unilaterally grant the stay, which would pause the enforcement of the judgment while the PLO prepares a formal petition for a writ of certiorari. Alternatively, she could refer the application to the full Court for consideration. If the stay is denied, the plaintiffs can immediately begin the process of identifying and seizing assets to satisfy the $655.5 million debt.
The PLO’s legal team has indicated that if the stay is not granted, they will seek an expedited review by the Supreme Court, arguing that the case presents a "once-in-a-generation" constitutional question regarding the limits of legislative power over the judiciary.
As the July 30 filing moves through the high court, the eyes of international legal scholars and diplomats remain fixed on the outcome. The resolution of this case will not only determine the fate of the $655.5 million award but will also redefine the boundaries of how the United States holds foreign political entities accountable for acts of violence committed abroad. For the families of the victims, the move represents the latest hurdle in a twenty-year quest for closure, while for the PLO, it is a fight for institutional survival and the preservation of sovereign-like protections in the face of shifting American law.
