The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would take up a case in a long-running dispute between the families of Americans killed in Israel and the government of parts of Palestine. Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
Realistically, whatever the judges decide, they are unlikely to have much impact on the wider conflict between Palestine and Israel. But the case could reshape the rules governing who can be sued, and where, here in the United States.
At this point, if someone wants to bring a case, they cannot file it in any court. They must bring the case in a court located in a place where the person or entity they are suing is connected. In legal terms, this concept is known as “”.Personal jurisdiction” Generally, personal jurisdiction operates on a sliding scale, with local courts gaining more power over a defendant as that defendant develops closer ties to that jurisdiction.
So, for example, a company with multiple retail outlets and dozens of employees in the state of Texas can be sued for virtually anything in a Texas court. But a Nebraska-based company that only occasionally ships a product to a Texas customer would be less risky for Texas.
That company may still be sued in a Texas court for disputes arising from that product. But the company likely can’t be sued in Texas over something that has nothing to do with Texas business, such as if its CEO is accused of sexually harassing a subordinate at the company’s headquarters in Nebraska. Instead, the sexual harassment lawsuit will likely need to be filed in a court in Nebraska.
If the court had sided with the plaintiffs full ofIt can ignore personal jurisdiction, at least in the interests of Congress or state legislatures. Americans may be forced to defend themselves in distant state courts and in states with potentially draconian laws and hostile judges.
The issue before the Supreme Court involved several Americans who were killed in Israel or Palestine while abroad. One of those Americans, Ari Fuld, was fatally stabbed during a 2018 attack outside a shopping mall in the West Bank.
Neither the lower court decision nor the Supreme Court briefing identified the attacker, but Fuld’s family sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestine Authority (PA), claiming that the two organizations “Encourage, stimulate, and help“Attack. (The PLO is the national representative of the Palestinian people, and it runs the PA, the government agency that governs the Palestinian territories in the West Bank.)
Fuld’s family and other family members of the victims all brought similar lawsuits in federal court. The problem is that neither the PLO nor the PA have legally relevant connections to the United States. The attacks took place nearly 7,000 miles from the United States. Federal law basically Prohibits the PLO from conducting any business in the United StatesBeyond maintaining a mission to the United Nations.
Accordingly, there are federal courts Repeated cases dismissed Claims that PA and PLO may be sued in US courts
But families are in full of They have a powerful ally in their fight: the United States Congress.
Congress has passed two laws to revive cases after they have been dismissed.
The most recent of these statutes was Includes a larger appropriations bill That President Donald Trump signed into law in 2019. It provides that the PLO and PA “shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdictionIf they are involved in the proceedings of two organizations in federal court It has been known to be involved for a long timeSuch as the payment of salaries to Palestinians convicted of terrorism offenses in Israeli courts.
how full of The constitutional rights of all Americans can be scratched
D full of The case could potentially reshape the rights of many Americans, who currently enjoy extensive protections against being sued in a distant court located in a state they’ve never visited. The Supreme Court has long held that rules of personal jurisdiction are grounded in the Constitution, specifically the guarantee that no one shall be denied “due process of law“
A federal appeals court held that hearing full of Explained, furthermore, “the ‘reasoning process analysis’ in the context of personal jurisdiction basically the sameWhether someone is sued in federal or state court. That means if the Supreme Court rules that two foreign entities with relevant ties to the United States “may be deemed to have consented to be sued in federal court” by an act of Congress, a state legislature could potentially consider it as well. Those who had little contact with that state could be sued in court.
For example, the Texas Legislature could potentially pass a law that says abortion providers and clinics across the United States are deemed to have consented to being sued in Texas courts — where they could be sued for violating a Texas law that allows donation hunters to take money from abortions. Collection is allowed. Provider, especially if the state legislature also amends that law specifically for such out-of-state suits
Congress, meanwhile, could allow any abortion provider to sue in federal court in Amarillo, Texas — home of notorious anti-abortion judge Matthew Kaczmaric.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court generally agrees to hear any case where a lower federal appellate court declares a federal law unconstitutional, and the appellate court’s decision. full of Effectively nullifies the 2019 Act of Congress. So the Supreme Court’s acceptance of this case is not necessarily a sign that a majority of justices are interested in rewriting the law governing personal jurisdiction.
Still, any issue involving Israel and Palestine stirs emotions among US policymakers. So the same sympathies full of Plaintiffs who inspired Congress to enact the 2019 law could also shape the justices’ decision. But in favor of a decision full of The plaintiffs could have sweeping implications that extend beyond the fraught politics of Israel and Palestine — and could potentially expose all Americans to lawsuits before hostile judges.
