The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will weigh in on the long-running conflict between the families of Americans killed in Israel and some Palestinian regional governments in a case called Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
Realistically, whatever decision the justices make is unlikely to have much of an impact on the broader conflict between Palestine and Israel. But this case could change the rules governing where and who can be sued here in the United States.
Right now, even if someone wants to file a lawsuit, they can’t file it in the court of their choice. They must litigate in a court located in a location associated with the person or entity they are suing. In legal parlance, this concept is known as “personal jurisdiction.” Personal jurisdiction typically operates on a sliding scale, with the district court gaining more and more authority over the defendant as the defendant develops a closer relationship with that jurisdiction.
So, for example, a company with multiple retail stores and dozens of employees in Texas can be sued for virtually anything in Texas courts. However, a Nebraska-based company that only occasionally ships products to customers in Texas is unlikely to be sued in Texas.
The company could likely continue to be sued in Texas courts over disputes arising from its products. But you can’t sue the company for issues that have nothing to do with its Texas operations, such as when the company’s CEO is accused of sexually harassing subordinates at its headquarters in Nebraska. Probably not. Instead, sexual harassment lawsuits will likely be filed in Nebraska courts.
If the court sides with the plaintiffs in Fuld, personal jurisdiction could be overturned, at least in cases involving Congress or state legislatures. Americans may be forced to defend themselves in courts in faraway states and, in some cases, in states with strict laws and hostile judges.
The issue before the Supreme Court involves several Americans who were killed while overseas in Israel or Palestine. One of these Americans, Ali Fuld, was attacked and fatally stabbed outside a shopping mall in the West Bank in 2018.
Although the identity of the assailant was not mentioned in the lower court ruling or the Supreme Court briefing, Fuld’s family sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA), arguing that the two organizations “encouraged , encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, Encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage, encourage.” supported the attack. (The PLO is the national representative of the Palestinian people and operates the PA, the government agency that administers the Palestinian territories in the West Bank.)
Fuld’s family and all other families of those killed have filed similar lawsuits in federal court. The problem is that neither the PLO nor the PA have any legal ties to the United States. The attack took place approximately 11,000 miles from the United States. Federal law primarily prohibits the PLO from conducting any type of business in the United States beyond maintaining its mission to the United Nations.
Accordingly, federal courts have repeatedly rejected lawsuits that argue that the PA and PLO can be sued in U.S. courts.
But Fuld’s family has a powerful ally in the U.S. Congress.
Congress passed two statutes requiring the reinstatement of lawsuits after they have been dismissed.
The latest of these laws was included in a sweeping spending bill that President Donald Trump signed in 2019. The bill provides that if the PLO and PA continue to engage, they will be “deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction” in federal court. The two organizations have reportedly engaged in a long-standing engagement, including paying salaries to Palestinians convicted of terrorist crimes in Israeli courts.
How Fuld was able to take away the constitutional rights of all Americans
The Fuld case could change the rights of many Americans who have broad protections against lawsuits in far-flung courts in states they have never visited. The Supreme Court has long maintained that the personal jurisdiction rule is based on the Constitution, specifically the guarantee that no one will be denied “due process of law.”
Moreover, as the federal appeals court that heard Fuld explained, whether someone is sued in federal or state court, “a ‘due process analysis’ in the context of personal jurisdiction… “Basically the same.” This means that if the Supreme Court decides that two foreign organizations with little connection to the United States can be “deemed to have consented” to be sued in federal court by an act of Congress, state legislatures could potentially also This means that it can be considered as People who have had little contact with the state could be sued in court.
For example, the Texas Legislature agreed to allow abortion providers and clinics across the country to sue in Texas courts, violating a Texas law that allows bounty hunters to collect money from abortions. There is a possibility that a law will be passed that would allow people to be sued as such. This is particularly true if the state legislature amends its laws to specifically provide for such out-of-state actions.
Meanwhile, Congress could allow abortion providers to be sued in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, home of notoriously anti-abortion Judge Matthew Kacsmalik.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court typically agrees to hear cases in which a lower federal appellate court declares a federal law unconstitutional, and the appeals court’s decision in Fuld effectively nullified the 2019 Congressional Act. . Therefore, the fact that the Supreme Court has taken up this case does not necessarily indicate that most of the justices are keen on rewriting the law governing personal jurisdiction.
Still, any issue involving Israel and Palestine fuels the passions of U.S. policymakers. So the same sympathy for the Fuld plaintiffs that prompted Congress to enact the 2019 law could shape the justices’ decisions. But a ruling in favor of the Fuld plaintiffs could have far-reaching implications far beyond the messy politics of Israel and Palestine, resulting in all Americans having to face cases before hostile judges. It may be easier to receive.
I read 1 article last month
Here at Vox, we’re unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you: democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the growing threat of polarization across our country.
Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that lets you stay informed and help shape your world. Becoming a Vox member directly strengthens our ability to provide in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.
We count on readers like you. Please join us.
Swati Sharma
vox editor in chief
