Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied the Palestinian Authority's emergency bid to halt a $655.5 million terrorism judgment, clearing the way for American victims' families to begin collecting on a verdict first won a decade ago.
Sotomayor, who handles emergency matters from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected the stay application without referring it to the full court and without offering any explanation, Newsweek reported. The ruling leaves intact a massive judgment against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization stemming from a series of shootings and bombings that killed and injured Americans in Jerusalem between 2002 and 2004.
Attorneys for the PA and PLO filed the emergency application in late July, arguing that enforcing the judgment would cripple basic government functions in the West Bank. Sotomayor's one-word answer, denied, means the plaintiffs can now move to collect.
The judgment dates to 2015, when a federal court in New York ordered the PA and PLO to pay roughly $655.5 million after a seven-week trial. American families had sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, seeking accountability for attacks carried out by various Palestinian groups and individuals during the Second Intifada. Among the attacks: a 2002 bombing at Hebrew University in Jerusalem that killed five Americans.
The verdict did not last long. In 2016, the 2nd Circuit threw it out, ruling that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over the Palestinian entities. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in 2018, and the case appeared dead.
Congress intervened. In 2019, lawmakers passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, a statute designed to make it easier for American victims of terrorism to sue the PA and PLO in U.S. courts. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that law in 2025 in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
Armed with that ruling, the 2nd Circuit reinstated the original $655.5 million judgment in March 2026, concluding the new statute provided a valid jurisdictional basis and allowed the previously vacated verdict to be revived.
PA and PLO attorneys called the reinstatement unprecedented. In court filings reviewed by Newsweek, they argued:
"[This] was the first time an American court has ever held that a money judgment made without jurisdiction may be resurrected years after all appeals were exhausted."
That argument did not move Sotomayor. Her denial, issued without explanation, keeps the judgment alive and enforceable.
The PA and PLO mounted their stay application on practical grounds as much as legal ones. Their filings painted a picture of an entity already buckling under financial pressure, unable to absorb a $655.5 million hit.
In the application, attorneys warned:
"Immediate enforcement of such a large judgment will destabilize critical government services Petitioners provide in the West Bank, injure innocent citizens, and jeopardize regional security."
They added that "the security, sanitation, and school services provided by Petitioners in the West Bank are hanging by a thread." The filings cited a World Bank report describing the PA as being in "deep fiscal crisis," with a total deficit before grants of $605 million in just the first nine months of 2025.
The PA's finances have been squeezed from multiple directions. Israel suspended clearance revenue transfers, taxes and customs duties collected on the PA's behalf under the Oslo Accords, in 2025, cutting off what the PA calls its primary income source. The aftermath of Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack on Israel added to the fiscal pressure. The Supreme Court's broader willingness to revisit settled legal frameworks has added uncertainty across multiple areas of law.
Court documents stated plainly where the plaintiffs intend to look for the money:
"Respondents plan to enforce the judgment against clearance revenues collected by Israel, which is the PA's source of income under the Oslo Accords."
Winning a judgment and collecting on it are two different things. Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor and executive director of George Mason University's Center for the Middle East and International Law, told Newsweek the enforcement phase will present its own challenges.
"The next step would be enforcing the judgment, which would be difficult to do in the United States because the PLO maintains very limited assets here, specifically to avoid having them seized to satisfy judgments by terror victims."
Kontorovich pointed to a path forward: "A judgment in the United States can be taken abroad, including to Israel and enforced there." That raises the prospect of American courts reaching across borders to seize the very clearance revenues the PA depends on, revenues already frozen by the Israeli government.
Plaintiffs' attorneys welcomed the 2nd Circuit's March reinstatement of the judgment, saying it would allow "justice to be done," as reported by The Times of Israel. They declined to comment further to Newsweek following Sotomayor's ruling.
Sotomayor's denial does not resolve the underlying legal dispute. It does not indicate how the full Supreme Court might rule if the justices later agree to hear the case. But it does remove the last immediate obstacle to enforcement, leaving the PA and PLO exposed to collection efforts while any further appeals play out.
The PA and PLO have not publicly stated whether they will seek reconsideration from the full court. Newsweek reached out to the defendants' legal representatives for comment and did not receive a response. The dynamics among the justices, including patterns in how individual members handle high-profile matters, will shape any future proceedings.
The Second Intifada, which forms the backdrop to this case, erupted in September 2000 after Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the compound in Jerusalem housing holy Islamic and Judaic sites, accompanied by hundreds of armed officers. Sharon and his supporters said the visit affirmed Israel's right of access to the site. The violence that followed killed more than 1,000 Israelis and approximately 3,000 Palestinians before a 2005 ceasefire agreement at Sharm el-Sheikh brought the conflict to an end.
The PA was established in 1994 under the Oslo Accords to administer parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The PLO, founded in 1964 with backing from the Arab League, signed those accords with Israel in 1993 and serves as the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people. Both entities now face a judgment that dwarfs the PA's annual deficit, and a legal system that Congress reshaped specifically to hold them accountable.
The liberal justices on the current Court have drawn scrutiny for their approach to contested cases. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's public comments and the liberal bloc's dissent patterns in recent terms have highlighted the ideological fault lines that shape how emergency applications like this one get handled. Whether the full court takes up the PA's case remains an open question.
Congress passed a law to give American terror victims their day in court. The Supreme Court upheld it unanimously. The appeals court reinstated the verdict. And now the last justice standing between the PA and a $655.5 million reckoning has stepped aside. At some point, the Palestinian Authority will have to answer for what happened in Jerusalem, not with arguments about fiscal hardship, but with money owed to the families who buried their dead.
