The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that victims of terrorism can pursue legal action against Palestinian entities in American courts.
This decision, handed down on Friday, affirms a 2019 law passed by Congress, as reported by NBC News. It’s a clear signal that the judiciary isn’t bowing to the progressive agenda of shielding foreign actors from accountability.
The case centered on the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, a law that Congress enacted to ensure victims could seek redress under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Think of it as a rare moment where lawmakers prioritized the pain of American families over diplomatic niceties. And frankly, it’s about time.
Before this law, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had tossed out claims, arguing U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA). That ruling left victims, including the family of Ari Fuld—an American citizen brutally killed in a 2018 West Bank terrorist attack—without recourse. It was a gut punch to those already grieving.
Ari Fuld’s family, along with other plaintiffs, had even secured a $655 million judgment, only to see it discarded by the lower court. If that’s not a textbook case of judicial overreach, what is? Congress, to its credit, saw the absurdity and acted.
The 2019 legislation was a direct response, stipulating that the PLO and PA could be deemed to have “consented” to U.S. jurisdiction under specific conditions. Those include making payments to terrorists convicted of attacks or killed during such acts, and conducting any activity in the U.S. within 15 days after the law’s enactment. It’s a narrow but pointed way to hold bad actors accountable.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that this law doesn’t violate due process rights of the Palestinian entities. “The law reasonably took account of sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches,” Roberts wrote. That’s a polite way of saying Congress has the right to draw a hard line when national security and justice are at stake.
Let’s unpack that quote: Roberts is essentially telling the woke crowd that not every issue needs to be softened by endless diplomatic hand-wringing. Foreign policy isn’t a feelings contest; it’s about protecting American lives. And this ruling proves the court gets that.
The PLO, which represents Palestinians on the international stage, and the PA, which holds partial governing power in the West Bank, now face the reality of legal accountability in U.S. courts. It’s not about punishment for punishment’s sake—it’s about ensuring victims aren’t left voiceless while their attackers are bankrolled.
Consider the human cost here, exemplified by the tragedy of Ari Fuld, stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist at a shopping mall in 2018. His family’s fight for justice isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a stand against the normalization of violence. This ruling offers them, and others like them, a sliver of hope.
Other plaintiffs in this litigation have endured similar heartbreak, only to face the insult of dismissed claims and overturned judgments. A $655 million award thrown out by a lower court isn’t just a legal setback—it’s a moral failing. Now, the Supreme Court has corrected that wrong.
This isn’t about painting entire groups as villains; it’s about targeting specific actions and policies that enable terror. The law’s conditions for jurisdiction are precise, focusing on payments to terrorists and U.S.-based activities. That’s not blanket condemnation—it’s surgical accountability.
Critics might argue this law oversteps, meddling in delicate foreign affairs, but let’s be real: when American lives are lost to terror, neutrality is a luxury we can’t afford. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that Congress can act decisively without trampling constitutional protections. It’s a win for balance, not bias.
Ultimately, this ruling sends a message louder than any protest chant or social media hashtag: justice for terrorism victims matters more than political correctness. It’s a reminder that the pain of families like Fuld’s isn’t a footnote in some diplomatic playbook. And if that’s not a cause worth championing, what is?
So, as the dust settles on this unanimous decision, let’s hope it marks a turning point—where the scales of justice tip back toward those who’ve suffered most. The road ahead for these lawsuits remains uncertain, but for now, the door to accountability is open. That’s a step even the most skeptical conservative can applaud.
