Siccing the Tort Bar on the PLO

The prospect of justice for victims of terrorism is looking brighter after a federal appeals court ruling allowing a lawsuit to proceed against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The decision by the Second United States Appeals Circuit reverses an earlier dismissal of the case. The dispute was revived by a Supreme Court ruling citing a recent statute that holds terrorists accountable for the deaths of Americans. Such developments in the federal courts, these columns have argued, suggest the role America’s tort bar could end up playing in the West’s eventual victory in the war on terror. This legal mobilization, we concluded, could be seen as part of a kind of triad with “the first front as the military actions, the second front as the diplomatic pettifoggery,” and the third front “as the one swarming with tort lawyers.”The legal crux of these cases centers on what critics call “pay for slay,” or the financial incentives that accrue to those who commit terrorist acts. Congress, in an effort to curb this practice, in 1990 passed an anti-terror law that lets Americans harmed by terrorism to seek recourse in federal courts. In 2019 this premise was expanded to encompass “pay for slay” via passage of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.The law holds groups liable for activities like “paying salaries to terrorists serving in Israeli prisons, as well as to the families of deceased terrorists.” Relying on the law, the family of an Israeli-American, Ari Fuld, killed by a Palestinian terrorist, sued the PLO and won nearly $300 million in damages. The Supreme Court in 2025 upheld the Fuld suit, affirming a federal “interest in holding accountable those who perpetrate” violence against Americans.Based on the ruling in Fuld, the riders of the Second Circuit are now reviving another case, Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, that had been dismissed. The case had earlier been tossed with the reasoning that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to weigh suits against terrorist groups responsible for attacks against Americans abroad. The reversal now means that the $656 million judgment against Palestinian entities is reinstated.A lawyer on the case, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, hailed the ruling as a “historic turning point in the fight against terrorism.” She predicted that the verdict, which opens up American courts to new terrorism claims, could change “the rules of the game.” Israel’s foreign ministry marked the reversal as “a major step in holding the Palestinian authority accountable for its long-lasting terror support — financially and legally.”The judgment arrives as American and Israeli forces wage war against Iran, the patron saint of state-sponsored terrorism. As our troops work to eliminate the threat of Iran’s nuclear program, last week’s ruling serves as a reminder that the struggle against terror is fought on many fronts. Where military and diplomatic interventions fall short, the tort bar, as it turns out, can sometimes deliver victories of its own.

Siccing the Tort Bar on the PLO

More from the New York Sun

Canada’s First Nations, Suing To Stop Alberta Referendum, Loom as Final Hurdle to Independence Vote

Why Was the Kin of an Iranian General Living in America?

Europe Takes a Page From Trump’s Migration Manual

More from the New York Sun

Canada’s First Nations, Suing To Stop Alberta Referendum, Loom as Final Hurdle to Independence Vote

Why Was the Kin of an Iranian General Living in America?

Europe Takes a Page From Trump’s Migration Manual

Vance, Attempting To Shore Up Orban’s Prospects, Delivers a Speech on American Friendship at Budapest

Democrats in Wisconsin Dominate State Supreme Court Race, Doubling Margin of Victory in Last Year’s Contest

Is Baby Born on New York-Bound Flight Entitled to American Citizenship?

A Swiss Warning Bares the Implications of an Older, Greyer, and Smaller West

Virginia Democrats Take Gerrymandering to a New Extreme, Posting a Test of Wills for GOP