The unanimous ruling on June 20, 2025, by the U.S. Supreme Court in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization represents a huge milestone in holding Palestinian actors accountable for terrorist-related financing. The Supreme Court upheld the 2019 Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) and accepted it as legitimate for American victims of terror attacks abroad to sue the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in U.S. courts when they found perpetrators of the attack.
The ruling specifically targets the “Pay-for-Slay” program, a perennial PA/PLO policy of compensating terrorists and their families, as a primary jurisdictional trigger.
The “Pay-for-Slay” Program: Fueling Terror
Financial Incentives for Violence
The PA and PLO have operated a systematic “martyr payments” scheme, providing salaries to Palestinians imprisoned for acts of terrorism and stipends to families of deceased attackers. Congress condemned this practice in the 2018 Taylor Force Act, citing it as “an incentive to commit acts of terror”. For example:
- Payments averaged $350/month per prisoner, scaling with sentence length.
- Families of suicide bombers received lifetime pensions.
Congress documented that these funds originated from the PA’s annual budget, with 7% allocated to “prisoner support” in 2018.
U.S. Legislative Response
The PSJVTA, enacted in 2019, created two narrow predicates for U.S. jurisdiction over the PA/PLO:
- Payments to Terrorists: If either entity pays individuals imprisoned for injuring/killing Americans or their families after the attacker’s death during an attack.
- U.S.-Based Activities: If they engage in any activities on U.S. soil.
Meeting either condition constitutes automatic consent to U.S. jurisdiction under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).
Legal Evolution: From $650M Verdict to Supreme Court Victory
Initial Victory and Reversal
In 2015, U.S. victims of 2002–2004 attacks in Israel secured a $655 million verdict against the PA/PLO under the ATA. However, the Second Circuit Court overturned this ruling, declaring U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction—a decision the PSJVTA explicitly sought to reverse.
Congressional Intervention
Frustrated by jurisdictional barriers, Congress passed the PSJVTA with bipartisan support. The law:
- Named the PA and PLO specifically.
- Applied retroactively to pending cases (e.g., Ari Fuld’s 2018 stabbing).
- Focused solely on ATA claims, avoiding broad exposure to civil suits.
Supreme Court Validation: Unanimous and Uncompromising
Constitutional Endorsement
Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion emphasized the law’s alignment with due process and national interests:
“The Federal Government may craft a narrow jurisdictional provision ensuring Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum to vindicate their right to ATA compensation.”
The Court highlighted the “exceedingly compelling interest” in holding perpetrators accountable for attacks on U.S. citizens abroad.
Rejection of PA/PLO Arguments
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred but questioned whether the PA/PLO “enjoy any constitutional rights at all”. The ruling dismissed their due process claims, noting the PSJVTA’s “suitably limited” scope avoids “myriad civil actions”.
Stakeholder Reactions: Justice vs. Sovereignty
U.S. Government Stance
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar (Biden administration) argued lower courts misinterpreted due process, calling their view “rigid and misconceived”. The U.S. position, consistent across Trump and Biden administrations, prioritized victim justice as a terrorism deterrent.
Palestinian Opposition
The PA/PLO maintained that U.S. courts lack authority over sovereign entities. They framed lawsuits as political tools to delegitimize Palestinian governance.
Victims’ Perspective
Ari Fuld’s family (plaintiffs in the case) emphasized accountability: “This ruling forces the PA to choose: fund terror or face consequences in U.S. courts”.
2025 Context: Shifting Policies Amid Crisis
In February 2025, PA President Mahmoud Abbas announced an end to direct “Pay-for-Slay” disbursements, shifting to needs-based welfare. This move aimed to:
- Comply with U.S. law to restore foreign aid.
- Address the PA’s fiscal collapse (e.g., unpaid public salaries).
However, the Supreme Court noted that past payments still trigger jurisdiction under the PSJVTA.
Implications: Deterrence and Diplomatic Strains
Deterring Terror Financing
The ruling empowers victims like those from the 2002–2004 attacks to revive their $655M claim. By tying jurisdiction to financial incentives, the PSJVTA pressures the PA/PLO to:
- Divert funds from militant support to public services.
- Document welfare payments to prove terror ties are severed.
Foreign Policy Tensions
While the Court deferred to Congress and the President on “sensitive foreign policy matters”, the decision risks:
- Undermining U.S.-Palestinian diplomatic relations.
- Complicating cease-fire negotiations in ongoing conflicts.
A Landshield for Victims
The Supreme Court’s unanimous endorsement of the PSJVTA crystallizes a U.S. commitment to combat terror financing through legal channels. By surgically linking jurisdiction to the PA/PLO’s financial choices, the law creates tangible consequences for subsidizing violence. As revived lawsuits advance, this ruling signals to state sponsors of terror that American victims will have their day in court—and a path to justice.
