On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its decision in Miriam Fuld, et al., v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et. al., reversing the Second Circuit decision holding that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (“the Act”) – which confers personal jurisdiction over groups like the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”), and its affiliate, the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) in federal suits brought by American victims of international terrorism – violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In a majority decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court reasoned that the Act represents a “considered” judgment by the political branches of government that balances concerns over national security, terrorism, and judicial fairness and easily meets the Fifth Amendment’s reasonableness threshold for purposes of affirming the constitutionality of its “suitably limited” personal jurisdiction provisions, both of which were triggered by respondents’ conduct in this case. The court declined to import the 14th amendment minimum contacts standard ordinarily followed by federal courts. They reasoned that constraining jurisdiction out of a concern for interstate federalism per the 14th amendment is misplaced in cases like this where personal jurisdiction was expressly conferred by federal statute. Rather, these cases require a “more flexible jurisdictional inquiry” commensurate with the political branches’ authority in furthering the goals of the United States as a distinct sovereign. It is especially salient in matters of foreign affairs that implicate the protection of the American citizenry, where the “strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation” is owed. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law submitted an amicus brief together with 17 Jewish and civil rights organizations in support of certiorari. The brief urged the Court to reverse the Second Circuit decision on two grounds: first, the Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power over foreign affairs; second, respondents’ extensive involvement in anti-Semitic terrorism clearly meets either of the statute’s jurisdictional predicates. The Supreme Court agreed with both points. In response to the decision, Kenneth L. Marcus, Chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center, commented: “The Supreme Court’s decision is a welcome development in the decades’ long effort by American victims of terrorism to obtain justice from terror groups.” Author: Emma WaxlaxJuly 24, 2025