606 U.S. 1 (2025) · 2025
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
terrorism litigationpersonal jurisdictionforeign policycivil damagesdue processLandmark
Summary
Fuld upheld the PSJVTA's personal-jurisdiction mechanism and reversed the lower courts' dismissal of suits against the PLO and PA. The ruling allows the cases to proceed but leaves liability and damages for later proceedings.
Background & Context
Families and victims sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, alleging the PLO and PA were liable for attacks that killed or injured Americans. Lower courts dismissed on personal-jurisdiction grounds before Congress enacted the PSJVTA.
The Question Before the Court
Does the PSJVTA's personal-jurisdiction provision for ATA suits against the PLO and PA violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause?
Petitioner
Miriam Fuld, et al.
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- Congress may provide a forum for American terrorism victims.
Respondent
Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The statute creates jurisdiction without enough forum contacts.
The Holding
The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act's personal-jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause as applied to the PLO and Palestinian Authority.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
9-0 in judgment
Vote
Joined decision
7 justicesAC
Amy Barrett
Majority
BK
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
EK
Elena Kagan
Majority
JR
John Roberts
Majority
KB
Ketanji Jackson
Majority
SA
Samuel Alito
Majority
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Majority
Concurred
2 justicesCT
Clarence Thomas
Concurred
NG
Neil Gorsuch
Concurred
What this means for you
The decision gives American victims and families another chance to pursue civil damages in U.S. courts for certain overseas attacks. It does not decide whether the PLO or PA are liable. It strengthens Congress's ability to craft jurisdictional rules in foreign-policy-sensitive terrorism cases.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling upheld Congress's PSJVTA jurisdiction provision.
- The decision turned on Fifth Amendment due process, not the merits of terrorism liability.
- The Court emphasized U.S. interests in providing a forum for American victims.
- The case revived litigation that had been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The practical effect is to reopen a path to civil compensation claims in U.S. courts.
Decision
9-0 in judgment majority opinion
- Citation
- 606 U.S. 1 (2025)
- Vote
- 9-0 in judgment
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- April 1, 2025
- Decided
- June 20, 2025
- Term
- 2024
- Opinion author
- John Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court's opinion. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, joined in part by Justice Gorsuch.