Circuit Rejects $655M Award Against PLO for Terror Attacks

, New York Law Journal


A $655 million award against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority for attacks that killed or wounded members of 11 American families in Israel has been thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • J

    It‘s all politics.

  • Avon

    My comment yesterday turns out to be mistaken about the statute that enables US courts to hear cases of acts and injuries elsewhere. - The NYTimes today describes and quotes the opinion. The statute is fine. What the Second Circuit relied on is the due process clause of the Constitution, which has always been interpreted to include the requirement that a court has to have a basis for jurisdiction over the people being sued. - That‘s not a liberal/conservative issue; this panel of three is diverse (a Manhattan D.A. who became a judge in the 1990s, the strict judge who sentenced Lynne Stewart to 10 years, and a U.S. Attorney first appointed by Clinton to the federal trial courts). If BHO elevates someone to Appeals and Mitch McConnell gets them confirmed, that doesn‘t make ‘em soft on terror. - Why have courts at all if we‘re going to insist on unconstitutional outcomes? We‘d be better off just going straight to Putin-style justice. As for the world, I agree that it‘s a frustrating shame if the world‘s justice system rejects American notions of fairness.

  • Avon

    We can all agree that the result is obscene, as it is whenever a guilty criminal is acquitted or an innocent one convicted. And it‘s a fact that the rule against appealing a Federal threshold issue until after the trial is necessarily frustrating. And it‘s awful to win and then lose the same case. So I do get the rightness of the three comments prior to mine. But we can‘t fault the Second Circuit without looking at the wording of the statute, the "brunt of the injury" precedents, and the corresponding details of this case. (I haven‘t done those things.) If Congress wrote a bad law, it‘s not the judges‘ fault so long as we expect a valid ruling. It may be better than no right ever to sue here for terror abroad, but if it‘s still not good enough the real answer is to fix that statute.

  • Joel K

    An american has zero chances to win a case against the PLO at the U.N. or Hague, and unfortunately with BHO appointed judges, there is no chance anymore even in the U.S.

  • Steven Haffner

    Obscene result.

  • Jim Grindstaff

    For a greater realization of the scope of this travesty of justice, one need only to look at the US monetary assistance to those who were found to support terrorism in Sokolow v. Palestinian Liberation Organization, 15-3135.

  • Bennos Masajeros

    So they went all the way through a whole trial, ultimately to determine that there was no personal jurisdiction? Brilliant legal system we have.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202766403519

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.