Cnn
–
The Supreme Court said on Friday that the Families of victims of terrorist attacks in Israel can continue the Palestinian authority In a decision that will probably facilitate victims of other attacks abroad with links with Palestinian groups to request damages in the American courts.
Chief judge John Roberts wrote the advice of the court and the vote was unanimous.
Roberts has written that the federal government has “a strong interest in allowing American victims of international terror to continue justice before the national courts”.
The court has “recognized the national government’s interest in holding responsible those who perpetuate an” act of violence against “American nationals – who, even when they are physically outside of our borders, remain” under particular protection “of American law,” Roberts wrote. “The same goes for the corresponding authority of the national government to make” the murder of an American abroad “punishable as a federal offense” which can be prosecuted before (United States). “”
Although the Supreme Court decided to the case in the midst of the war in Gaza and an increasing tension with Iran, the circumstances which led to the trial and the appeal took place for years earlier. And the underlying question was technical.
In question, a series of deadly attacks within Israel dates back to the second intifada in the early 2000s. The question of the Supreme Court was whether the congress had the power to subject the organization of Liberation of Palestine and the Palestinian Authority to the competence of the Federal Courts, which would allow the victims of these attacks to continue for damages.
One of these victims, Ari Fuld, an American citizen and the applicant appointed in the case before the Supreme Court, were stabbed in 2018 after the President of the PLO said that the Israeli government wanted to establish Jewish prayer areas in one of the most sacred sites in Islam, according to the judicial archives. A federal court in 2015 awarded the victims more than $ 650 million under the Federal Anti-Terrorism ACT, which allows Americans to continue the damage caused by terrorism.
But a New York Federal Court of Appeal canceled this verdict, judging that the courts were lacking in jurisdiction over the PLO and the Palestinian authority.
While the case has rebounded around the federal courts, the Congress intervened on several occasions to modify the law to allow the victims to continue after the federal courts ruled against them, more recently in 2019. This law essentially made Palestinian groups subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court if they had carried out “any activity” in the United States, with a few exceptions.
But the 2nd Court of Appeals in the United States judged that the law violated the fifth amendment.
The Palestinian Authority declared to the Supreme Court in a briefing which, because it does not “maintain any constitutionally significant link with the United States”, allowing federal courts to exercise its competence on complaints “for the alleged attacks in Israel and Palestine will violate the regular process”.
During the oral arguments in April, several of the judges had indicated that they wanted to rely on the other branches of the issue.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the Court’s conservative wing, noted that the president and the congress had acted together on the question of the court jurisdiction.
“Now, there is still a role in judicial control to ensure that they do not cross another constitutional line, but, generally, it is a very sensitive judgment to make for a federal court,” said Kavanaugh in April.
“Usually, we demand something in the text of the Constitution or in historical practice over the years which would suggest a certain principle on which the courts could count on who would disagree with the foreign policy and the judgment of the national security of the congress and of the president acting together,” he said.
In a concordant opinion, judge Clarence Thomas – partially joined by judge Neil Gorsuch – said that he would have gone further, judging that the fifth amendment should not be read to force the courts to indicate cases involving foreign parties.