A landmark US Supreme Court decision handed down on Friday could open the door to lawsuits and compensation for American victims of terrorism that was committed outside US soil.
In a unanimous 9-0 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that American anti-terrorism laws apply to foreign entities, paving the way for a narrow set of circumstances in which these suits can be brought.
Lawsuits in this regard have existed for years, but until now, it was unclear if American courts had the jurisdiction to hear them.
Miriam Fuld, whose husband Ari Fuld was killed in a stabbing attack in 2018 in a shopping center parking lot by a 17-year-old Palestinian terrorist, filed such a suit alongside her children in 2021.
Fuld, who was born in New York, but lived in Efrat, attempted to shoot his attacker before collapsing.
The Fuld case actually joined a much larger and older suit, the Sokolow case, which later became the Waldman case.
In 2004, the families of terrorism victims filed a lawsuit against the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).
The suit, led by Shurat HaDin (the Israel Law Center), an NGO and civil rights group, was filed in the federal Southern District of New York (SDNY).
There were two significant hurdles to overcome to get to the case on Friday. The first concerned sovereign immunity, a legal principle that prevents governments and their agencies from being sued unless they agree to it. Overcoming this hurdle took about two decades.
The second issue had to do with personal jurisdiction – the court’s legal authority to make decisions affecting a person or party that a case cannot be heard without.
Personal jurisdiction is a concept that applies either when one of the parties lives in the affected area, or does business there, or if the event happened there, or if the person agrees to it.
Miriam Fuld, Ari’s widow, recalled the moment she learned of the case’s success: “It was about an hour and a half before Shabbat when my lawyer rings me and says, ‘Hot off the press, we won 9-0.’ At first I didn’t understand what he was saying. 9-0 means unanimous. That’s amazing,” she told The Jerusalem Post on Monday.
The journey to the Supreme Court was a long one. Miriam and her lawyer had to wait for her husband’s murderer, Ali Jabarin, to be convicted in an Israeli court before they could commence with the proceedings in the US.
Jabarin was convicted of Fuld’s murder in January 2020 and sentenced to life in prison. He was later released as part of the Israel-Hamas hostage-prisoner exchange this past February. Lawyer Maurice Hirsch, who was responsible for the criminal case in Israel, told the Post that at the time of Jabarin's release, he was receiving at least NIS 4000 a month from the PA as part of its larger “pay for slay” policy.
“This is what we are up against, a 17-year-old who woke up one day and said, ‘I’m going to go and slaughter a Jew,’” Fuld’s widow said. “One thing he knew for sure that morning was that he was financing his family for the rest of his life. He was getting that bonus; he was going to get paid.”
“There is no downside for these murderers... these terrorists. There is no deterrence,” she said, adding that four months after her husband was killed, the Israeli government demolished the middle floor of Jabarin’s family building.
“But he received three meals a day in jail. He barely sat for four years in jail - and then he was released. Meanwhile, we are left with this hole in our lives,” she said.
This was one of the most significant incentives for taking on the case, Fuld’s attorney, Samuel Silverman, told the Post on Monday.
“The case really demonstrates that terrorists and entities that sponsor them are not going to get away with it,” he said. “If they think they can just sponsor someone and pay money to terrorists and their families, we are going to figure out a way to make them pay.”
Miriam echoed similar sentiments: “That’s what is so incredible about this whole thing. It is about recognizing the PA and the PLO for the terrorism that they promote.
“It is about exposing them for what they do and who they are, and for giving a voice for international terror victims – and victims of Palestinian terror – all over the world,” she said.
The Sokolow/Waldman suit
The basis for the Sokolow case in the 2004 suit was the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which was passed by Congress in 1992. In it, the families argued that the PLO and the PA financed and orchestrated seven separate attacks, and that these specific organizations were responsible for the terrorist attacks between January 2001 and February 2004.
The case was delayed due to legal loopholes in the ATA, which, over the years, had been bolstered by additional Acts of Congress.
In September 2008, Judge George Daniels at the SDNY dismissed the PLO’s claim that the attacks were acts of war, not acts of terrorism.
A trial for the Sokolow case in an Appeals court began in 2015, and in February, the jury found the PLO guilty. It was required to pay the families $218.5 million.
Due to the ATA reinforcements, this amount was tripled, standing at $655.5m.
The defendants appealed the case, arguing that they were not responsible for terrorism. They also added that either way, the court had no standing regarding personal jurisdiction – the court’s legal authority to make decisions affecting a person or party, which a case cannot be heard without.
Development of the legislation
What the ATA does do is grant US citizens the right to sue individuals, organizations, or governments who carry out or support acts of terrorism, even if the attacks did not happen on US soil.
This means that such offenders can be held financially accountable in US courts.
Just a few years earlier, in 1985, the Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF), a left-wing political faction, hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro cruise ship. During the incident, PLF members shot and killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Jewish-American who was a wheelchair user, and threw his body overboard.
Here was a case where an American citizen was targeted in a terrorist attack outside of the US, and where, before the ATA, there was no clear legal pathway for victims like him and his family to seek justice in American courts. So, Congress expanded the available legal tools at its disposal.
A trial began in 2015 in the Sokolow case, and in February, the jury found the PLO guilty. It was ordered to pay the suing families $218.5m.
Shurat HaDin and other groups and individuals lobbied in Congress, eventually leading it to amend the law: If an entity receives US aid, this effectively grants personal jurisdiction, opening the door to lawsuits.
While the Sokolow case continued to bounce around the courts, the Fuld family filed a separate yet parallel suit, based on the PA’s “pay for slay” policy.
Fuld said she doubted whether the US Supreme Court would even agree to hear the case.
But then Silverman rang her in early 2025 to say that multiple briefs from members of Congress, senators, House representatives, Harvard law professors, and 17 different Orthodox congregations had been submitted in support of her petition.
A date for the case proceedings was then set for April 1.
US Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Friday ruling, “It is permissible for the federal government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right” to compensation.
Roberts noted that one primary factor in this regard is “the national government’s interest in holding accountable those who perpetrate an ‘act of violence against’ US nationals who, even when physically outside of our borders, remain ‘under the particular protection’ of American law,” and the government’s authority to make such acts “punishable as a federal offense prosecutable in US courts.”
Now, after the Friday ruling, the Fuld case will return to the SDNY, where Silverman hopes it will go to trial, as the family is seeking damages.
The Sokolow/Waldman case is also set to return to the courts, but unlike the Fuld case, it carries a $655m. verdict.
Afterward, if the court upholds the judgment, the legal aid group will begin the process of domesticating the ruling in Israel, made possible by legal treaties between Jerusalem and Washington.
Once that happens, it will go through the Israeli court system, whereby it is expected that this will eventually hit the PA’s tax money.
“It really sets a precedent,” Silverman told the Post. “It moves the needle in terms of jurisdiction, which is the single greatest issue in terrorism cases. Future judges might think twice when dismissing cases on jurisdictional grounds.”
“What this case has demonstrated is that when it comes to Israel and terrorism, there is clear bipartisan support,” said Silverman. “The message of this case in an era of really partisan politics is that people can agree that terrorism cannot be tolerated.”
For Fuld’s widow, two things were very clear before commencing on the legal journey.
“We knew that this case was going to be cited for hundreds of years to come,” she said. “The question was, was it going to be cited positively or negatively?”
Nevertheless, it was a journey she said she felt compelled to undertake, primarily as a way of honoring the legacy and spirit of her late husband.
“Ari’s whole essence was fighting for truth and justice,” she told the Post. “The incredible thing about Ari was that he had this knowledge of history and facts. He always said, ‘If you are going to fight, argue, or debate somebody, you need the facts; that is your power.’”
“Ari was our moral compass,” she said.
One of her four children said to her after the case was done: “Daddy’s name has gone down in history in the books of the Supreme Court forever.”
“Bringing justice for terror victims does the most justice for Ari,” Fuld’s widow concluded.