In brief
A long-standing legal battle has culminated in the reinstatement of a $656 million judgment against the Palestinian authorities by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision, a decade in the making, follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling permitting victims of terrorist attacks in Israel to sue the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The plaintiffs' legal representatives express a deep sense of relief following years of litigation under the Anti-Terrorism Act, asserting that Palestinian agents played a role in the attacks.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to reinstate a $656 million judgment against Palestinian authorities, a ruling that develops from a decade-old case regarding attacks that led to American fatalities and injuries in Israel.
This decision reverses an earlier ruling that dismissed the claim, citing the inability of U.S. courts to adjudicate cases involving foreign entities in overseas attacks. However, the recent Supreme Court ruling has provided a fresh legal basis for the plaintiffs.
The reinstatement comes after the Supreme Court's June ruling which upheld a law passed in 2019, allowing victims and their families to initiate lawsuits against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority.
We conclude that the original judgment for the plaintiffs should be reinstated. That conclusion is consistent with the plain import of the Supreme Court’s decision, the judges said in their decision dated March 30.
Attorney Kent Yalowitz, representing the plaintiff families, expressed that they were relieved by the court's ruling, ending a prolonged pursuit of justice over 22 years.
The plaintiffs had pursued their case under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992, which was designed to enable American victims of international terrorism to seek redress in U.S. courts. Their assertions contend that agents of the Palestinian authorities either participated in the attacks or incited them significantly.
Conversely, Palestinian officials have consistently argued that such cases should not be heard in American courts, a stance that continues to influence legal discussions surrounding this case.
As the legal battle continues, emails seeking comment from the defendants' legal team have been dispatched.
