Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
606 U. S. ____ (2025) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same 'minimum contacts' standard of personal jurisdiction on federal courts that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts. A federal statute asserting personal jurisdiction over foreign entities is constitutional if it reasonably ties jurisdiction to conduct related to the United States and implicates significant foreign policy concerns within the prerogative of the political branches.
Facts:
- The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) are entities that perform governmental functions for parts of the West Bank and Gaza.
- A group of American citizens were injured or killed in various terror attacks that occurred in Israel.
- In a separate incident in 2018, another American citizen was stabbed and killed in an attack in the West Bank.
- The PLO and PA maintained a practice of making payments to terrorists imprisoned in Israel and to the families of deceased terrorists who had injured or killed U.S. nationals.
- The PLO and PA also conducted activities and maintained facilities within the United States, separate from their United Nations mission.
Procedural Posture:
- In one lawsuit (Sokolow), American citizens sued the PLO and PA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the Sokolow judgment, finding a lack of personal jurisdiction.
- After Congress passed the PSJVTA, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the Sokolow case for reconsideration.
- In a separate lawsuit (Fuld), another American family sued the PLO and PA in the same district court, invoking the new PSJVTA.
- The District Court dismissed both the Fuld case and the remanded Sokolow case, holding that exercising jurisdiction under the PSJVTA violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The plaintiffs in both cases (petitioners) appealed to the Second Circuit, which consolidated the cases and affirmed the district courts' dismissals.
- The plaintiffs and the United States, as an intervenor defending the statute, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), which deems the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority to have consented to personal jurisdiction in U.S. federal courts under specific conditions, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, C.J.
No, the PSJVTA’s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, which is constrained by principles of interstate federalism, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the Federal Government's broader sovereign authority. Because the State and Federal Governments occupy categorically different sovereign spheres, the 'minimum contacts' standard from International Shoe does not apply to federal courts exercising jurisdiction under a federal statute. The PSJVTA is a constitutional exercise of congressional power because it reflects a considered judgment by the political branches on matters of foreign policy and national security. The statute is narrowly tailored, applying only to the PLO and PA in Antiterrorism Act cases, and ties jurisdiction to specific conduct—payments incentivizing terrorism and maintaining a U.S. presence—that directly implicates the United States' foreign policy interests. Furthermore, even if a 'reasonableness' analysis were required, the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable given the U.S.'s compelling interest in providing a forum for victims of terrorism and the minimal burden on the sophisticated defendants.
Concurring in judgment - Thomas, J.
No, the PSJVTA does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, but for reasons distinct from the majority's. As an original matter, the Due Process Clause likely imposes no territorial limits on Congress’s power to authorize personal jurisdiction in federal courts. Historically, any limits on extraterritorial jurisdiction stemmed from defeasible principles of international law, not the Constitution, which Congress could override via statute. Additionally, it is highly questionable whether foreign nonsovereign governmental entities like the PLO and PA qualify as 'persons' entitled to Fifth Amendment due process protections in the first place. The PSJVTA is a validly enacted statute reflecting a foreign policy judgment of the political branches, and that is sufficient to satisfy any procedural requirements of due process.
Analysis:
This decision formally bifurcates the personal jurisdiction analyses under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, resolving a long-unanswered question. By rejecting the direct application of the 'minimum contacts' test to federal statutes, the Court grants Congress substantial deference in creating jurisdictional rules for foreign entities, particularly in areas touching on foreign policy and national security. This ruling establishes a more flexible, policy-driven standard for federal personal jurisdiction in international cases, which will likely embolden Congress to enact similar legislation targeting specific foreign actors. The decision empowers the political branches to use civil litigation as a tool of foreign policy, shifting the focus from a defendant's contacts with a forum to the federal government's interest in regulating the defendant's conduct.
