Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 24-20Jun 20, 2025Crime and Law EnforcementReversed

The question

Whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the PLO and Palestinian Authority under the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization

What the Court decided

The Court reversed the Second Circuit and upheld the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision. The statute deems the PLO and Palestinian Authority to have consented to personal jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act cases under two circumstances. The Court held this does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. The interstate federalism concerns that limit state court jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment do not apply to the Federal Government, which holds nationwide and extraterritorial authority.

How the justices split

Unanimous
In favor 9
Roberts
Alito
Sotomayor
Kagan
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson
Thomas
Gorsuch

The Court's opinion

Roberts, joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson

The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court's modern personal jurisdiction cases construe the Fourteenth Amendment's limits on state courts, which rest on both fair treatment of defendants and interstate federalism. The interstate federalism concerns do not apply to the Federal Government, which the Constitution alone empowers with nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.

Concurring in the judgment

Thomas, joined by Gorsuch

Thomas agreed with the judgment upholding the statute. Gorsuch joined the opinion only as to Part II. The syllabus does not state the reasoning of this opinion beyond that it concurs in the judgment.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Antiterrorism Act of 1990 creates a federal civil damages action for U.S. nationals injured or killed by reason of an act of international terrorism, and permits aiding and abetting liability.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The PSJVTA names the PA and PLO specifically and provides that they shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in ATA cases under two circumstances.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The Court held the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Interstate federalism concerns that limit Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction over state courts do not apply to the Fifth Amendment's limitations on the Federal Government, which holds nationwide and extraterritorial authority.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court joined by Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, and Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment which Gorsuch joined as to Part II.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov