Fuld case gains momentum as DOJ and bipartisan leaders push for Supreme Court review

A significant development occurred in the Fuld case against the PLO when the Biden administration’s Department of Justice called on the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of a 2019 law that allows Americans injured by acts of terror to sue the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for damages.

“There is nothing unfair or unreasonable about deeming respondents to consent to jurisdiction in the United States if they carry on activities in this country or make payments that reward or incentivize acts of terrorism harming US nationals,” the petition, filed on August 8, reads.

The case centers on the murder of Ari Fuld, an American-Israeli who was fatally stabbed by a teenage Palestinian terrorist outside a supermarket in Gush Etzion on September 16, 2018. Since the attack, the terrorist’s family has received financial rewards from the PA, a program critics call “Pay for Slay.” The Fuld family filed their lawsuit against the PLO under the Promoting Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PJVTA), an act that expands on the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) to give terror victims the right to pursue civil action in US courts. 

The case has been dismissed twice, first by a Southern District court and then by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Last month, the Fuld family appealed to the Supreme Court with bipartisan support from House leadership. 

Undermining the ability to combat terrorism 

In the petition, the Biden administration’s petition emphasized that the lower court’s decision invalidates the PJVTA, undermining Congress’s power to combat terrorism and impacting the ATA’s effectiveness. The petition also cited previous successes under the ATA, including a 2015 case where 11 American families were awarded $655.5 million for attacks in Israel in a lawsuit against the PA and PLO. 

“The decision under review holds the PJVTA facially unconstitutional, effectively eviscerating the ATA’s private right of action in many of its most important applications—against the very organizations it was enacted to bring into our courts,” the brief reads. “The decision did so by adopting a definition of Due Process, and a conception of the territorial boundaries on Congress’s power to legislate against extraterritorial threats, which will severely hamper Congress’s efforts to combat terrorism.” 

Fuld family attorney Samuel Silverman previously told the Jerusalem Post, “If the Supreme Court takes the case and rules in our favor, it would set a precedent for consent-based jurisdiction and affirm its constitutionality, expanding jurisdiction in terrorism cases.”

The House filed a bipartisan amicus brief on August 8 with the support of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), warning that if the lower court’s decision is upheld, American victims of international terrorism will struggle to seek justice, and foreign terrorists could evade civil penalties. “These are the very policy objectives Congress has consistently sought to advance,” the brief stated.  

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also filed a motion that day urging the Supreme Court to hear the case. Additionally, a bipartisan group of Senators, including Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), signed an amicus brief in support of the case. 

“We appreciate the support we received in the lower court and especially now at the Supreme Court level,” Silverman told the Jerusalem Post. “It is an honor to have the former Secretary of State, the entire bipartisan House, and, of course, the Department of Justice stand behind terror victims and ensure they have their day in court.”