Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, Docket No. 24-20

Listen to the episode on Spotify

When does sending legal papers by email count as proper notice? The Supreme Court has now answered that in the Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization case. A family in Washington, D.C., sued the PLO over the tragic death of a loved one in a terror attack. They tried handing the complaint to the PLO’s U.S. office but came up empty. So the judge said, “Okay, you can mail it and even email it to their New York representative.” The PLO argued that wasn’t a real way to serve papers, but the Supreme Court disagreed. It said that under the law governing suits against foreign entities, courts can allow these alternate methods when personal service isn’t possible.

This ruling sends the case back to lower court and means the family’s lawsuit can move forward. It also sheds light on how judges balance the right to fair notice against victims’ need for access to justice.

Summary of the Case

American citizens (and their estates) who were injured or killed in terrorist attacks abroad sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990. After winning jury verdicts worth over $650 million in one case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned these victories, ruling that US courts lacked personal jurisdiction over these organizations because their alleged support for terrorism occurred overseas and didn't create sufficient connection to the United States.

In response, Congress passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA). This law specifically names the PA and PLO and establishes that they are considered to have consented to US court jurisdiction in terrorism cases if they either: (1) pay salaries or death benefits to convicted terrorists or their families, or (2) maintain any offices, facilities, or conduct any activities in the United States.

Lower courts found this law unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, but the Supreme Court has now reversed that decision.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court in judgment, made three key rulings:

First, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (which applies to federal power) doesn't incorporate the same "minimum contacts" test used for state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is because the Fourteenth Amendment concerns relationships between states, while the Fifth Amendment deals with federal authority, which can extend beyond US borders.

Second, Congress acted within its constitutional authority when creating the PSJVTA, which links jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct that meaningfully relates to the United States and involves critical foreign policy decisions made by the political branches of government.

Third, even if applying a "reasonableness" standard from Fourteenth Amendment cases, the PSJVTA easily passes constitutional muster. The Court noted the strong interest of American victims in having a US forum, the nation's compelling interest in fighting terrorism, and the absence of any unfair burden on the defendants.

The Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the cases back for further proceedings.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas (joined partly by Justice Gorsuch) agreed with the outcome but offered different reasoning. He argued that the Fifth Amendment, as originally understood, places no territorial limit on Congress's power to extend federal jurisdiction. In his view, the Due Process Clause never imposed substantive restrictions on extraterritorial federal jurisdiction in the first place.

How Congress Tailored the Law to Combat Terrorism Financing

The PSJVTA carefully amends the Anti-Terrorism Act's jurisdictional rules in two specific ways.

First, it targets "incentive" programs like salaries paid to terrorists serving prison terms in Israel and benefits paid to families of terrorists killed while carrying out attacks. Congress had previously condemned these payments in the Taylor Force Act.

Second, the law subjects the PLO and PA to US court jurisdiction if they maintain any offices, facilities, or physical presence in the United States. This provision builds on existing restrictions on PLO/PA operations on American soil.

Importantly, the law applies only to terrorism claims and specifically excludes the Palestinian mission to the United Nations. Unlike broader jurisdictional provisions, Congress crafted the PSJVTA to target two specific non-sovereign organizations already involved in US counter-terrorism policy. The law gives clear notice that continuing these specific activities will be treated as consent to being sued in American courts.

The statute reflects a careful legislative balance between deterring support for terrorism, respecting diplomatic and foreign policy concerns, and ensuring fairness to defendants who have known connections to the United States.