Supreme Court Upholds $656 Million Judgment for Victims of Palestinian Terrorism
Victims of Palestinian terrorism have won an important victory thanks to Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks notched a victory recently at the Supreme Court.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied an appeal from the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority to halt a $656 million judgment.
The ruling means the victims and their families are now one step closer to being paid damages, following years of legal battles over terrorism attacks.
“The lawsuit was filed by victims of attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more,” the Associated Press reported. “Families brought their lawsuit under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law aimed at opening U.S. courts to victims of international terror attacks.”
A significant legal victory for American victims of Palestinian terrorism.
US Supreme Court Allows For Enforcement of $656 Million Lawsuit Against PA and PLO https://t.co/cxwb5BTsua— Judea Pearl (@yudapearl) August 4, 2026
Victims of terrorism have faced a lengthy legal battle, according to The Daily Signal:
The first judgment in favor of the victims was awarded in 2015, but it was reversed on appeal when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court initially rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal in 2018.
The plaintiffs then sued under the revised Anti-Terrorism Act, a 1992 law updated in 2019 to allow the victims of the Palestinian attacks to seek damages in federal courts.
The Supreme Court upheld the 2019 revisions in a 2025 ruling, affirming the victims’ right to sue and allowing the case to proceed. The 2nd Circuit Court reinstated the $656 million judgment on March 30, which reversed a ruling from a decade ago, according to The Associated Press.
Palestinian authorities argued paying would create a hardship, according to Newsweek.
They argue “the suspension of tax revenues collected by Israel on the authority’s behalf, coupled with worsening fiscal deficits and economic disruption, have deepened a financial crisis that is straining the PA’s ability to fund government services in the West Bank.”
However, Algemeiner points out that the Palestinian Authority operates a “pay-to-slay” program.
“Under this policy, official payments are made to Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, the families of ‘martyrs’ killed in attacks on Israelis, and Palestinians injured in terrorist attacks,” the news site explains.
Victims and their families will now fight to ensure the judgment is collected.
[Featured image via Supreme Court]
Matt Lamb currently works as an associate editor for The College Fix. He also contributes to a variety of websites, including Human Life Review and AMAC Newsline. His work has been published by The Federalist, Townhall, and The Daily Caller. He has worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Wow, even Sotomayor gets it correct occasionally
Kbj not so much.
Too many big words and biological references stymie her.
Correct. Sotomayor occasionally is part of an 8-1 majority, with Jackson as the sole dissenter.
Where can we read KBJ’s dissent?
I went to the USSC website. A very short dissent — “It was just some guys doing some stuff”.
How would KJB know if they were guys? She’s not a biologist after all.
Some people did something.
Perhaps this could lead to the DNC sueing the DSA for use of their platform.
The DNC is certainly a victim.
DSA has acknowledged no Reconciliation with DNC.
I know nothing about law.
Does this possibly open a floodgate?
I don’t see that happening. I don’t know of any similar cases that have been filed.
So… on what legal basis is this under the jurisdiction of US courts?
Also, how is this not ex post facto? The attacks happened in the early 2000s, but the law was amended in 2019? Sure, it’s a civil suit, but isn’t changing the rules after the fact exactly what the ex post facto prohibition is all about?
I hate the Palestinian terrorists as much as the next guy, but this is how things go bad, IMO. Please, someone tell me how this is proper?
US courts have jurisdiction over anything Congress says they do.
The ex post facto clause applies only to criminal law.
So it would have been fine had this actually been an ex post facto law. But it isn’t; it’s not as if the attacks were lawful at the time they were carried out, it’s just that US courts didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the cases. Congress thought it had already given them jurisdiction, but the circuit court said it hadn’t, and SCOTUS decided not to get involved. So Congress changed the law to make its intent clearer. Having been given jurisdiction the court reconsidered the case and affirmed its earlier judgment.
And how does a law passed in the US Congress give them jurisdiction over things done by and to non-Americans elsewhere in the world?
Isn’t that basically what the ICC did? “We have said what is just, and it applies to you whether you want it to, or not”? Doesn’t that invalidate all of our talk about “democracy” and “sovereignty” and such?
And, how is it that “ex post facto” only applies to criminal law? Here’s what the Constitution says:
I don’t see “criminal” anywhere in that.
Bill of Attainder is in the treason clause.
“Ex post facto” refers to making something a crime after it is done. Murder has always been a crime.
Because the US constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of this land. US courts have whatever jurisdiction the constitution and Congress say they have. No pronouncement from any international body has any authority here.
No, because we are talking about US law. US law invalidates the ICC, and makes it a crime to enforce any ICC warrant against a US or allied citizen. US law authorizes the president to impose sanctions on ICC judges for issuing warrants for US or allied citizens. Those sanctions are valid under US law, which is the only law that matters in this country.
The ICC can do whatever it likes in the Netherlands, or at least anything that Netherlands law lets it get away with. Our sanctions are not binding in the Netherlands. But they’re binding here. If a bank wants to do business here it will comply with our sanctions.
Calder v Bull. “The constitution of the United States does not prohibit the states from passing retrospective laws generally; but only ex post facto laws. Now it has been solemnly settled by this court, that the phrase, ex post facto laws, is not applicable to civil laws, but to penal and criminal laws.”
“Palestinian authorities argued paying would create a hardship”
Bullshit. The PLO has stolen billions. Arafat’s net worth alone was 2-3B. The
current nutjob has stolen only 500M. Cyprus is littered with the mansions of the PLO elites. There is also the aforementioned pay to slay program. They have more than enough funds to cover any awards against them.
My poor niece has a better chance of getting child support from her deadbeat ex-husband than these hurting victims have of collecting their awards from the PLO. After all this time and legal expense, I really hope they manage to collect what they are owed.
Actually they do have a good way of collecting. Once they have a final judgment in the US court, they go to court in Israel to have the US judgment enforced. Once they get an enforcement order from the Israeli court, they go to the Israeli government and demand payment out of the tax revenues that Israel collects on the PA’s behalf and remits to it.
The Arab invaders from Arabia in Gaza and the West Bank (historically revisionist and re-branded “Palestinians”) still have a lot of recompense to pay — financial and otherwise — for their incessant, genocidal, Islamic “holy war” terrorism.
Leave a Comment