`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` No.
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE
`pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~íÉë=
`_______________
`
`
`
`MARK SOKOLOW, ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION AND
`PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY (AKA PALESTINIAN INTERIM
`SELF-GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND OR PALESTINIAN
`COUNCIL AND OR PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY),
`Respondents.
`
`_______________
`
`On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari
`To The United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Second Circuit
`_______________
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`_______________
`
`KENT A. YALOWITZ
`BARUCH WEISS
`ARNOLD & PORTER
` KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 836-8000
`Kent.Yalowitz@apks.com
`
`THEODORE B. OLSON
` Counsel of Record
`MATTHEW D. MCGILL
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
`(202) 955-8500
`TOlson@gibsondunn.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`In response to terror attacks on Americans by the
`Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”), Congress
`established in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992 a fed-
`eral cause of action for U.S. nationals “injured … by
`reason of an act of international terrorism.” 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2333(a). Petitioners are American victims of terror-
`ist attacks in Israel carried out by officers, employees,
`and agents of the Palestinian Authority and the
`PLO—which together function as the government of
`parts of the West Bank. Petitioners sued the Pales-
`tinian Authority and the PLO under the Anti-Terror-
`ism Act and a jury returned a verdict for petitioners.
`The court of appeals vacated the judgment, holding
`that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO are “per-
`sons” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Pro-
`cess Clause and that due-process principles bar fed-
`eral courts from asserting personal jurisdiction over
`the defendants for their acts of international terror-
`ism because their attacks were not “sufficiently con-
`nected to the United States.” The question presented
`is:
`
`Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
`Clause precludes federal courts from exercising per-
`sonal jurisdiction in this suit by American victims of
`terrorist attacks abroad carried out by the Palestinian
`Authority and the PLO.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`Petitioners, who were plaintiffs-appellees/cross-
`appellants below, are: Mark I. Sokolow, Rena M.
`Sokolow, Jamie A. Sokolow, Lauren M. Sokolow,
`Elana R. Sokolow, Dr. Alan J. Bauer, individually and
`as natural guardian of plaintiff Yehuda Bauer, Revi-
`tal Bauer, individually and as natural guardian of
`plaintiff Yehuda Bauer, Yehonathon Bauer, Binyamin
`Bauer, Daniel Bauer, Yehuda Bauer, minor, by his
`next friend and guardians Dr. Alan J. Bauer and Re-
`vital Bauer, Shmuel Waldman, Henna Novack Wald-
`man, Morris Waldman, Eva Waldman, Rabbi Leonard
`Mandelkorn, Shaul Mandelkorn, Nurit Mandelkorn,
`Oz Joseph Guetta, Varda Guetta, Nevenka Gritz, in-
`dividually, and as successor to Norman Gritz, and as
`personal representative of the Estate of David Gritz,
`Shayna Eileen Gould, Ronald Allan Gould, Elise Ja-
`net Gould, Jessica Rine, Katherine Baker, individu-
`ally and as personal representative of the Estate of
`Benjamin Blutstein, Rebekah Blutstein, Richard Blu-
`tstein, individually and as personal representative of
`the Estate of Benjamin Blutstein, Larry Carter, indi-
`vidually and as personal representative of the Estate
`of Diane (“Dina”) Carter, Shaun Choffel, Dianne Coul-
`ter Miller, Robert L. Coulter, Jr., Robert L. Coulter,
`Sr., individually and as personal representative of the
`Estate of Janis Ruth Coulter, Chana Bracha Gold-
`berg, Eliezer Simcha Goldberg, Esther Zahava Gold-
`berg, Karen Goldberg, individually, as personal repre-
`sentative of the Estate of Stuart Scott Goldberg, and
`as natural guardian of plaintiffs Yaakov Moshe Gold-
`berg and Tzvi Yehoshua Goldberg, Shoshana Malka
`Goldberg, Tzvi Yehoshua Goldberg, minor, by his next
`friend and guardian Karen Goldberg, Yaakov Moshe
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Goldberg, minor, by his next friend and guardian Ka-
`ren Goldberg, and Yitzhak Shalom Goldberg.
`Respondents, who were
`defendants-appel-
`lants/cross-appellees below, are the Palestine Libera-
`tion Organization and the Palestinian Authority (aka
`Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority and or
`Palestinian Council and or Palestinian National Au-
`thority).
`In addition, the following were defendants before
`the district court but were not parties before the court
`of appeals: Mohammed Sami Ibrahim Abdullah, Majid
`Al-Masri, Hussein Al-Shaykh, Mahmoud Al-Titi,
`Yasser Arafat, Abdel Karim Ratab Yunis Aweis, Nasser
`Mahmoud Ahmed Aweis, Ahmed Taleb Mustapha Bar-
`ghouti, Marwin Bin Khatib Barghouti, Esatate of Said
`Ramadan, deceased, Estate of Mazan Faritach, de-
`ceased, Estate of Mohammed Hashaika, deceased, Es-
`tate of Muhanad Abu Halawa, deceased, Estate of Wafa
`Idris, deceased, Faras Sadak Mohammed Ghanem, Mo-
`hammed Abdel Rahman Salam Masalah, Munzar
`Mahmoud Khalil Noor, Hassan Abdel Rahman, Kaira
`Said Ali Sadi, Nasser Jamal Mousa Shawish, Sana’a
`Muhammed Shehadeh, and Toufik Tirawi.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1
`JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED ......................................... 1
`STATEMENT .............................................................. 2
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 13
`I. THE DECISION BELOW EVISCERATES
`THE ANTI-TERRORISM ACT AND
`UNDERMINES CONGRESS’S ABILITY TO
`PROVIDE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF
`FEDERAL LAW ABROAD .................................. 14
`A. The Second Circuit’s Decision
`Creates A Practically Insuperable
`Barrier To Suits Under The Anti-
`Terrorism Act ......................................... 14
`B. The Second Circuit’s Decision
`Imperils Congress’s Authority To
`Provide For Enforcement Of Other
`Federal Laws .......................................... 18
`II. THE DECISION BELOW CONTRAVENES
`THE CONSTITUTION AND THIS COURT’S
`CASE LAW ...................................................... 22
`A. Foreign Governments Are Not
`“Persons” Entitled To Due Process ........ 22
`B. Asserting Personal Jurisdiction
`Over Foreign Governments That
`Carry Out Terrorist Attacks That
`Kill Americans Comports With The
`Fifth Amendment ................................... 27
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 34
`
`
`
`v
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX A: Opinion of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
`(Aug. 31, 2016) ................................................. 1a
`APPENDIX B: Opinion of the United States
`District Court for the Southern District of
`New York Denying Motion to Dismiss
`(March 30, 2011) ............................................ 52a
`APPENDIX C: Transcript (Excerpt) of Pro-
`ceedings Before the United States Dis-
`trict Court for the Southern District of
`New York Regarding Motion to Recon-
`sider (April 11, 2014) ..................................... 75a
`APPENDIX D: Order of the United States
`District Court for the Southern District of
`New York Denying Motion to Reconsider
`(June 16, 2014) ............................................... 81a
`APPENDIX E: Opinion of the United States
`District Court for the Southern District of
`New York Denying Motions for Summary
`Judgment (Dec. 1, 2014) ................................ 82a
`APPENDIX F: Jury Verdict (Feb. 25, 2015) ........ 88a
`APPENDIX G: Transcript (Excerpt) of Pro-
`ceedings Before the United States Dis-
`trict Court for the Southern District of
`New York Regarding Post-Trial Motions
`(July 28, 2015) .............................................. 116a
`APPENDIX H: Opinion of the United States
`District Court for the Southern District of
`New York Regarding Post-Trial Motions
`(Aug. 24, 2015) ............................................. 124a
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`APPENDIX I: Order of the United States Dis-
`trict Court for the Southern District of
`New York Entering Judgment for Plain-
`tiffs (Oct. 1, 2015) ........................................ 131a
`APPENDIX J: Order of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
`Denying Rehearing Petition (Oct. 19,
`2016) ............................................................. 139a
`APPENDIX K: Constitutional and Statutory
`Provisions Involved ...................................... 143a
`U.S. Const. amend. V ................................. 143a
`U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 ....................... 143a
`Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism
`Act, Pub. L. No. 114-222, 130 Stat.
`852 (2016) ........................................... 144a
`United States Code:
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1189 ................................... 145a
`15 U.S.C. § 6a ..................................... 146a
`
`15 U.S.C. § 78aa ................................. 146a
`18 U.S.C. § 2331 ................................. 148a
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2332a ............................... 150a
`18 U.S.C. § 2332d ............................... 151a
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2332f ................................ 151a
`18 U.S.C. § 2332h ............................... 154a
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2332i ................................ 156a
`18 U.S.C. § 2333 ................................. 159a
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2334 ................................. 160a
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`Vii
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2338 ................................. 161a
`18 U.S.C. § 2338 ................................. 161a
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2339 ................................. 161a
`18 U.S.C. § 2339 ................................. 161a
`18 U.S.C. § 2339A ............................... 162a
`18 U.S.C. § 2339A ............................... 162a
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2339B ............................... 163a
`18 U.S.C. § 2339B ............................... 163a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of
`Cal., Solano Cty.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) .................................... 5, 32, 33
`Bank Markazi v. Peterson,
`136 S. Ct. 1310 (2016) .................................... 17, 20
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) ........................................ 33, 34
`Calder v. Jones,
`465 U.S. 783 (1984) ........................................ 13, 30
`City of E. St. Louis v. Circuit Ct. for
`20th Judicial Circuit,
`986 F.2d 1142 (7th Cir. 1993) .............................. 24
`Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis,
`523 U.S. 833 (1998) .............................................. 24
`EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co.,
`499 U.S. 244 (1991) .............................................. 18
`In re Fox’s Will,
`52 N.Y. 530 (1873) ................................................ 23
`Frontera Res. Azerbaijan Corp. v. State
`Oil Co. of Azerbaijan Republic,
`582 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2009) ................................. 24
`Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. United States,
`304 U.S. 126 (1938) .............................................. 26
`Hanson v. Denckla,
`357 U.S. 235 (1958) .............................................. 28
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
`561 U.S. 1 (2010) .................................................. 33
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of
`Unemployment Comp. & Placement,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) .............................................. 30
`J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro,
`564 U.S. 873 (2011) .................................. 29, 30, 31
`Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,
`465 U.S. 770 (1984) .............................................. 32
`Max Daetwyler Corp. v. R. Meyer,
`762 F.2d 290 (3d Cir. 1985) ................................. 29
`Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd.,
`561 U.S. 247 (2010) .............................................. 19
`Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff
`& Co.,
`484 U.S. 97 (1987) .......................................... 23, 28
`Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab
`Jamahiriya,
`294 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .......................... 24, 26
`Principality of Monaco v. State of Miss.,
`292 U.S. 313 (1934) .............................................. 24
`Rush v. Savchuk,
`444 U.S. 320 (1980) ........................................ 30, 33
`South Carolina v. Katzenbach,
`383 U.S. 301 (1966) .............................................. 24
`United States v. Bennett,
`232 U.S. 299 (1914) .............................................. 29
`United States v. Fox,
`94 U.S. 315 (1876) ................................................ 23
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`United States v. Naseer,
`No. 10-cr-00019-RJD-4 (E.D.N.Y.
`2016) ....................................................................... 6
`United States v. Trabelsi,
`No. 06-cr-00089 (D.D.C. 2007) ............................... 6
`United States v. Warsame,
`No. 11-cr-00559 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ........................... 6
`Walden v. Fiore,
`134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ........................ 13, 28, 32, 33
`Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police,
`491 U.S. 58 (1989) ................................................ 23
`Wolff v. McConnell,
`418 U.S. 539 (1974) .............................................. 26
`World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
`Woodson,
`444 U.S. 286 (1980) ........................................ 29, 30
`Zivotofsky v. Kerry,
`135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) .............................. 12, 25, 26
`Constitutional Provisions
`U.S. Const. amend. V ................................................ 23
`Statutes
`Pub. L. No. 114-222, 130 Stat. 852
`(2016) .............................................................. 31, 33
`Pub. L. No. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2130
`(2014) ...................................................................... 9
`7 U.S.C. § 2 ................................................................ 19
`8 U.S.C. § 1189 .................................................... 11, 31
`15 U.S.C. § 4 .............................................................. 19
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`15 U.S.C. § 6a ............................................................ 19
`15 U.S.C. § 15 ............................................................ 19
`15 U.S.C. § 78aa ........................................................ 19
`15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1 ..................................................... 19
`15 U.S.C. § 78u .......................................................... 19
`18 U.S.C. § 981 .......................................................... 19
`18 U.S.C. § 2331 ................................................ passim
`18 U.S.C. § 2332a ........................................................ 6
`18 U.S.C. § 2332d ........................................................ 6
`18 U.S.C. § 2332f ......................................................... 6
`18 U.S.C. § 2332h ........................................................ 6
`18 U.S.C. § 2332i ......................................................... 6
`18 U.S.C. § 2333 ...................................... 2, 6, 7, 11, 15
`18 U.S.C. § 2334 .................................................... 8, 11
`18 U.S.C. § 2338 .......................................................... 6
`18 U.S.C. § 2339A ........................................................ 6
`18 U.S.C. § 2339B ........................................................ 6
`22 U.S.C. § 611 ............................................................ 9
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ........................................................... 7
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ....................................................... 17
`Regulations
`80 Fed. Reg. 36580 (2015) ........................................... 9
`Exec. Order No. 12947, 60 Fed. Reg.
`5079 (Jan. 23, 1995) ............................................. 31
`
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`Legislative Materials
`Antiterrorism Act of 1991: Hearing on
`H.R. 2222 Before the Subcomm. on
`Intellectual Property and Judicial
`Admin. of the H. Comm. on the
`Judiciary, 102d Cong. 10 (1992) ............................ 7
`Antiterrorism Act of 1990: Hearing on S.
`2465 Before the Subcomm. on Courts
`and Admin. Practice of the S. Comm.
`on the Judiciary, 101st Cong. 92
`(1990) ...................................................................... 7
`H.R. Rep. No. 102-1040 (1992) .......................... passim
`S. Rep. No. 102-572 (1992) .............................. 8, 15, 34
`Statement by President George Bush
`Upon Signing S. 1569, 28 Weekly
`Comp. Pres. Docs. 2112 (Oct. 29,
`1992) ....................................................................... 2
`Other Authorities
`2 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the
`English Language (6th ed. 1785) ........................ 23
`4 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R.
`Miller, Federal Practice and
`Procedure (3d ed. 2002) ........................................ 29
`Brief for the Respondent in Opposition
`to Certiorari, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, No.
`13-628 (Feb. 21, 2014), 2014 WL
`718600 .................................................................... 9
`Exhibit A to Registration Statement of
`the Palestinian Authority Pursuant
`to the Foreign Agents Registration
`Act ........................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`Exhibit A to Registration Statement of
`the Palestine Liberation
`Organization Pursuant to the
`Foreign Agents Registration Act ........................... 9
`Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement
`on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
`Sept. 28, 1995, 36 I.L.M. 551 ................................. 8
`Jim Zanotti, Cong. Research Serv., U.S.
`Foreign Aid to the Palestinians (Dec.
`16, 2016) ................................................................. 9
`National Consortium for the Study of
`Terrorism and Responses to
`Terrorism, American Deaths in
`Terrorist Attacks (Oct. 2015) ................................. 2
`National Consortium for the Study of
`Terrorism and Responses to
`Terrorism, Annex of Statistical
`Information: Country Reports on
`Terrorism 2015 (June 2016) .................................. 2
`Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign
`Relations Law § 217 (Am. Law Inst.
`Tentative Draft No. 2, 2016) ................................ 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`
`Petitioners Mark Sokolow et al. (“petitioners”) re-
`spectfully petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
`judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
`the Second Circuit.
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The court of appeals’ opinion is reported at 835
`F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2016). Pet. App. 1a. The court of
`appeals’ order denying rehearing (id. at 139a) is unre-
`ported. The relevant opinions and orders of the dis-
`trict court (id. at 52a, 75a, 81a, 82a, 124a, 131a) are
`unreported, but three of its relevant orders are avail-
`able at 2015 WL 10852003 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2015),
`2014 WL 6811395 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2014), and 2011
`WL 1345086 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2011).
`JURISDICTION
`The court of appeals entered its judgment on Au-
`gust 31, 2016, and denied a timely petition for rehear-
`ing and rehearing en banc on October 19, 2016. Pet.
`App. 139a. Justice Ginsburg extended the time for fil-
`ing a petition for a writ of certiorari until March 3,
`2017. No. 16A617. This Court has jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`Pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions
`are reproduced at Pet. App. 143a.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`STATEMENT
`International terrorism constantly threatens
`American citizens and interests. The year 2015 alone
`witnessed more than 11,700 terrorist attacks world-
`wide.1 And every year, some of the millions of Ameri-
`cans who travel, study, or reside abroad are killed and
`injured by terror attacks outside the United States.2
`This case is about Congress’s power to protect Ameri-
`cans from that global threat.
`Nearly 25 years ago, Congress enacted the Anti-
`Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq., as part of the
`Nation’s “comprehensive legal response to interna-
`tional terrorism.” H.R. Rep. No. 102-1040, at 5 (1992).
`Adopted in response to the overseas murder of an
`American citizen by the Palestine Liberation Organi-
`zation (“PLO”), the Act aims to “ensure that … a rem-
`edy will be available for Americans injured abroad by
`senseless acts of terrorism.” Statement by President
`George Bush Upon Signing S. 1569, 28 Weekly Comp.
`Pres. Docs. 2112 (Oct. 29, 1992). It does so by granting
`any U.S. national injured by “international terror-
`ism”—defined to include terrorist acts that occur out-
`side the United States—the ability to sue those re-
`sponsible in federal court and obtain treble damages.
`18 U.S.C. §§ 2331(1)(C), 2333(a). That intentionally
`
`
` 1 National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Re-
`sponses to Terrorism, Annex of Statistical Information: Country
`Reports on Terrorism 2015 4 (June 2016), https://www.state.gov/
`documents/organization/257738.pdf (all internet sites last vis-
`ited March 2, 2017).
` 2 See National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Re-
`sponses to Terrorism, American Deaths in Terrorist Attacks 1
`(Oct. 2015), https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_American-
`TerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`broad private remedy enables terrorism victims to ob-
`tain meaningful relief and helps deter future terrorist
`acts by disrupting terrorist groups’ finances.
`The court of appeals’ decision in this case eviscer-
`ates this crucial component of the political branches’
`antiterrorism policy, and its holding would sharply
`curtail Congress’s legislative authority in the terror-
`ism context and beyond. This case involves the para-
`digmatic circumstance Congress designed the Anti-
`Terrorism Act to address. Petitioners are victims (or
`estates of victims) of gruesome public bombings and
`shootings carried out in Israel by the Palestinian Au-
`thority and the PLO—which together function as the
`government of parts of the West Bank—and by U.S.-
`designated terrorist organizations materially sup-
`ported by those entities. Petitioners sued the Pales-
`tinian Authority and PLO in federal court. After a
`trial, a jury found that defendants, through their of-
`ficers or organizations they materially supported, ex-
`ecuted the attacks.
`The Second Circuit set aside that jury verdict for
`lack of personal jurisdiction, applying an unprece-
`dented standard that effectively renders unconstitu-
`tional heartland applications of the Anti-Terrorism
`Act. The court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due
`Process Clause bars personal jurisdiction over the de-
`fendants—even in this suit based on proven acts of in-
`ternational terrorism against Americans—absent a
`showing that the attackers “specifically targeted” U.S.
`citizens or had the “specific aim” of targeting the
`United States. Pet. App. 42a, 45a. That holding es-
`sentially nullifies the Anti-Terrorism Act by erecting
`a nearly insuperable obstacle to relief for American
`victims of terrorism abroad. And it defeats Congress’s
`aim of ensuring that “any U.S. national injured … by
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`an act of international terrorism [is able] to bring a
`civil action in a U.S. District Court,” H.R. Rep. No.
`102-1040, at 5 (emphasis added), effectively limiting
`the Act to suits based on terrorist attacks aimed “spe-
`cifically” at U.S. citizens or territory.
`The court of appeals’ rationale, moreover, would
`constrict the geographical scope of Congress’s legisla-
`tive authority in other contexts. Congress’s power to
`legislate extraterritorially is unquestioned. But the
`decision below calls into serious doubt Congress’s abil-
`ity to create effective remedies to enforce such legisla-
`tion—as Congress has done both for terrorism and in
`other areas—threatening to curtail the effective scope
`of Congress’s prescriptive jurisdiction.
`These grave consequences of the Second Circuit’s
`decision alone warrant this Court’s review. The court
`of appeals’ departure from first principles and this
`Court’s teachings amplify the need for intervention.
`The decision below erred at the outset by extending
`due-process protections to the Palestinian Authority
`and PLO, which together function as the government
`of a foreign territory. The Fifth Amendment’s Due
`Process Clause by its terms protects only “persons.”
`This Court’s precedents compel the conclusion that
`foreign governments such as the Palestinian Author-
`ity and PLO—like other governmental entities—are
`not “persons” within the Clause’s meaning. The Sec-
`ond Circuit nevertheless deemed both entities entitled
`to due-process protections solely because the Execu-
`tive has declined to recognize those governments as
`sovereigns. But nothing in the Fifth Amendment’s
`text or history or this Court’s case law justifies accord-
`ing greater constitutional safeguards to foreign gov-
`ernments that this Nation has not recognized than
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`those it has. If allowed to stand, that reasoning iron-
`ically could interfere with the presidential foreign-pol-
`icy decisions it purports to respect, skewing the Exec-
`utive’s analysis by making the availability of relief to
`private parties under federal law hinge on diplomatic
`recognition.
`The Second Circuit further strayed from the Con-
`stitution and this Court’s precedents by distorting ap-
`plicable personal-jurisdiction standards. The court of
`appeals conflated the standards applicable to suits
`governed by the Fourteenth Amendment—developed
`to impose limits on state power—with the principles
`applicable under the Fifth Amendment in this federal-
`court case concerning federal power. Under any plau-
`sible standard, it is not “unfair” or “unreasonable”
`(Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano
`Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 116 (1987)) for Congress to author-
`ize federal courts to assert personal jurisdiction over
`governmental entities that commit acts of terror
`against Americans and sponsor U.S.-designated ter-
`rorist organizations.
`Because the court of appeals grounded its ruling
`in constitutional principles, the political branches are
`powerless to correct this serious error and prevent its
`destructive consequences. Only this Court can vindi-
`cate the proper extent of the political branches’ consti-
`tutional authority. This case—a rare personal-juris-
`diction appeal where the underlying merits were tried
`successfully to a verdict—provides the perfect vehicle
`for doing so.
`The petition should be granted.
`1. To protect Americans from the global threat of
`terrorism, Congress has created a network of legisla-
`tive measures that aim to deter terrorist acts.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Congress has criminalized acts of international
`terrorism themselves, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a, 2332f,
`2332h, 2332i, as well as financial and other material
`support of international terrorist organizations, e.g.,
`id. §§ 2332d, 2339A, 2339B. These statutes have re-
`sulted in numerous federal criminal charges and suc-
`cessful prosecutions of foreign terrorists.3
`Another critical piece of Congress’s “comprehen-
`sive legal response to international terrorism” (H.R.
`Rep. No. 102-1040, at 5) is its authorization in the
`Anti-Terrorism Act of private suits by victims of inter-
`national terrorism. The Act was adopted in 1992,
`largely in response to the PLO’s murder of U.S. citizen
`Leon Klinghoffer aboard an Italian cruise ship. H.R.
`Rep. No. 102-1040, at 5. Klinghoffer’s family was able
`to sue in U.S. court, but only because his murder at
`sea fell under admiralty jurisdiction and the PLO
`“had assets and carried on activities in New York.”
`Ibid. Congress worried that “[a] similar attack occur-
`ring on an airplane or in some other locale might not
`have been subject to civil action in the U.S.” Ibid.
`Congress thus created in the Act both a cause of action
`for, and exclusive federal-court jurisdiction over, suits
`by “[a]ny national of the United States” injured by
`acts of “international terrorism” against those respon-
`sible, and provided for automatic treble damages.
`18 U.S.C. §§ 2333(a), 2338.
`The Act’s private right of action and automatic
`treble damages “send[] a strong warning to terrorists
`to keep their hands off Americans and an eye on their
`
`
` 3 See, e.g., Judgment, United States v. Naseer, No. 10-cr-
`00019-RJD-4 (E.D.N.Y. 2016); Plea Agreement, United States v.
`Warsame, No. 11-cr-00559 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Superseding Indict-
`ment, United States v. Trabelsi, No. 06-cr-00089 (D.D.C. 2007).
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`assets.” Antiterrorism Act of 1990: Hearing on S. 2465
`Before the Subcomm. on Courts and Admin. Practice
`of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 101st Cong. 92-108
`(1990) (statement of Sen. Grassley). As the United
`States said in a Statement of Interest filed in the dis-
`trict court in this case, the statute “reflects our na-
`tion’s compelling interest in combatting and deterring
`terrorism at every level,” and “compensation of vic-
`tims at the expense of those who have committed or
`supported terrorist acts contributes to U.S. efforts to
`disrupt the financing of terrorism and to impede the
`flow of funds or other support to terrorist activity.”
`D.C. Dkt. 953-1.
`For the Act to accomplish those compelling gov-
`ernment objectives, Congress recognized that it had to
`“remove the jurisdictional hurdles in the courts con-
`fronting [terrorism] victims.” Antiterrorism Act of
`1991: Hearing on H.R. 2222 Before the Subcomm. on
`Intellectual Property and Judicial Admin. of the H.
`Comm. on the Judiciary, 102d Cong. 10 (1992) (letter
`from Sen. Grassley). To that end, Congress deliber-
`ately gave the Anti-Terrorism Act broad extraterrito-
`rial reach. The Act provides a cause of action only to
`victims of “international terrorism,” 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2333(a)—defined as “violent acts or acts dangerous
`to human life” that either “occur primarily outside the
`territorial jurisdiction of the United States” or “trans-
`cend national boundaries”; that would be crimes un-
`der federal or any State’s law; and that “appear to be
`intended” either to “affect the conduct” or “influence
`the policy of” a “government,” or to “intimidate or co-
`erce a civilian population.” Id. § 2331(1)(A)-(C) (em-
`phasis added).
`Congress also recognized that the service-of-pro-
`cess rules embodied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`4 do not “take into account the unusual mobility of ter-
`rorists, their organizations, and their financiers.” S.
`Rep. No. 102-572, at 45 (1992). Accordingly, to further
`collapse jurisdictional barriers, Congress authorized
`nationwide service of process for suits under the Act:
`A victim of international terrorism may serve process
`anywhere in the United States where the defendant
`“resides, is found, or has an agent.” 18 U.S.C. § 2334.
`Through these combined features, Congress in-
`tended the Act to “open[] the courthouse door to vic-
`tims of international terrorism,” and to “extend[] the
`same jurisdictional structure that underg[ir]ds the
`reach of American criminal law to the civil remedies
`that it defines.” S. Rep. No. 102-572, at 45.
`2. Petitioners are members of eleven American
`families, who themselves or whose loved ones were
`killed or injured in seven terrorist attacks carried out
`in Israel between 2001 and 2004. Pet. App. 5a & n.2,
`9a-11a. Those attacks were perpetrated by “security”
`officers and other agents of respondents: the Pales-
`tinian Authority and the PLO. Id. at 9a-11a.
`a. The Palestinian Authority and PLO, though
`technically distinct entities, together function as the
`government of parts of the West Bank. Pet. App. 7a-
`9a. The Palestinian Authority—which consists of an
`executive, legislative, and judicial branch—is the do-
`mestic government of that territory. See Israeli-Pal-
`estinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the
`Gaza Strip ch. 2, Sept. 28, 1995, 36 I.L.M. 551. The
`PLO, in turn—which is funded exclusively by the Pal-
`estinian Authority—conducts foreign affairs. C.A.
`App. 1371. The United States does not recognize the
`Palestinian Authority and PLO—or any other govern-
`ment—as having sovereign control over the West
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Bank. See Br. in Opp. 4-5 n.3, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, No.
`13-628 (Feb. 21, 2014), 2014 WL 718600.
`Nonetheless, the Palestinian Authority and PLO
`undisputedly constitute, and present themselves as, a
`foreign government. As they explained to the court of
`appeals, “[t]he PLO and the [Palestinian Authority]
`function as Palestine’s government.” Resp. C.A. Br. 7
`(capitalization omitted). The Palestinian Authority
`and PLO also interact with the United States as a for-
`eign government. They employ “foreign agents” in the
`United States who are re
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
