United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization
695 F. Supp. 1456, 1988 WL 112585, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18608 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An act of Congress will not be construed to violate international law or a treaty if any other possible construction remains. For a statute to supersede a prior treaty, the legislative intent to abrogate the treaty must be clear and unequivocal.
Facts:
- In 1947, the United States and the United Nations entered into the Headquarters Agreement, which obligates the U.S. not to impose impediments on the transit to or from the UN headquarters district for persons invited by the UN.
- In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly invited the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to participate in its sessions and work in the capacity of an observer.
- Following this invitation, the PLO established and continuously maintained a Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations in New York City.
- For over a decade, the U.S. Department of State consistently recognized that the Headquarters Agreement obligated the U.S. to permit PLO observers access to the UN for official functions.
- In 1987, the U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which declared the PLO a terrorist organization and made it unlawful to establish or maintain an office within the U.S. at the behest of the PLO.
- The ATA was scheduled to take effect on March 21, 1988.
- Prior to the ATA's effective date, the U.S. Attorney General notified the Chief of the PLO Observer Mission that maintaining the mission would be unlawful under the new statute.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and several individual members in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The government sought an injunction to enforce the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 and close the PLO's Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The United States moved for summary judgment.
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 Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 require the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization's Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations, thereby superseding the United States' obligations under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Palmieri, J.
No. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 does not supersede the United States' obligations under the UN Headquarters Agreement and therefore does not require the closure of the PLO's Permanent Observer Mission. A statute must be construed to avoid conflict with a prior treaty obligation unless Congress has expressed a clear and unequivocal intent to abrogate that treaty. Here, the Headquarters Agreement obligates the U.S. to allow the PLO Mission, as a UN invitee, to function without impediment, which includes maintaining an office. The text of the ATA does not explicitly mention the PLO Mission or the Headquarters Agreement. Furthermore, its legislative history is ambiguous and fails to show a clear intent by Congress to override this specific treaty obligation; instead, proponents of the ATA argued that no such treaty obligation existed, rather than arguing for its abrogation. Given this lack of clear intent, the court must reconcile the two laws by interpreting the ATA as inapplicable to the PLO Observer Mission.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark application of the Charming Betsy canon of statutory construction, establishing a high threshold for finding that a domestic statute abrogates a pre-existing treaty. The decision reinforces the principle that courts will presume Congress intends to act consistently with international law unless it explicitly states otherwise. It solidifies the judiciary's role in harmonizing domestic and international legal obligations, requiring lawmakers to be explicit if they intend for the United States to violate its international commitments. The ruling demonstrates that ambiguous legislative history or broad statutory language is insufficient to override a specific, long-standing treaty obligation.
