The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

As part of its comprehensive legal response to international terrorism, Congress also enacted the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA). The ATA supplied the underlying cause of action in two lawsuits now before the court. The first lawsuit went to trial, and in 2015 a jury found Ds liable under the ATA. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $218.5 million in damages, which was trebled to $655.5 million. The Second Circuit vacated the judgment and directed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. It held that the killings and related acts of terrorism . . . were unconnected to the forum and were not expressly aimed at the United States. Congress responded by enacting the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 (ATCA). The ATCA deemed defendants “to have consented to personal jurisdiction” if they engaged in certain activities in the United States or accepted particular forms of U. S. foreign assistance. Congress then passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act in 2019 (PSJVTA). The Act refers specifically to D. The first jurisdictional predicate relates to D's practice “of paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists”-conduct which Congress has condemned as “an incentive to commit acts of terror.” The PSJVTA’s second predicate ties jurisdiction to respondents’ activities on U. S. soil. D is deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction if, after a specified period, either “continues to maintain,” “establishes[,] or procures any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments in the United States,” or otherwise “conducts any activity while physically present in the United States.” The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit, and remanded for “further consideration in light of the PSJVTA.” A few days after our remand, a second set of plaintiffs-the family of an American citizen stabbed in a 2018 attack in the West Bank-sued D under the ATA in the Southern District of New York, and invoked the PSJVTA as the basis for personal jurisdiction. With both Ps back in District Courts, they alleged that D had engaged in conduct sufficient to trigger both PSJVTA predicates. Ds contend that the PSJVTA violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States intervened in both cases to defend the law’s constitutionality. Both District Courts found evidence that respondents had engaged in conduct sufficient to satisfy at least the payments prong. The Second Circuit consolidated the cases and affirmed. Following Circuit precedent “holding that the due process analyses under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments parallel one another in civil cases,” the panel explained that the statute’s factual predicates involve conduct insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The court held that the PSJVTA could not, consistent with “the requirements of constitutional due process,” “establish personal jurisdiction over D. Ps appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the PSJVTA violates the Fifth Amendment.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.