Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 606 U.S. 1

Background

Two lawsuits were brought in federal court (S.D.N.Y.) by U.S. nationals against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for injuries from overseas terrorist attacks.
Congress passed the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), which deems the PLO and PA to have consented to personal jurisdiction in ATA cases if they engage in certain conduct—such as making terrorism-related payments or operating in the U.S.
Both District Courts and the Second Circuit held the PSJVTA’s jurisdictional provisions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, relying on the Fourteenth Amendment's "minimum contacts" test.
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the PSJVTA’s personal jurisdiction provision for federal courts exceeds constitutional due process limits when asserting jurisdiction over foreign entities.
The cases reach the Supreme Court after a jury verdict for plaintiffs was vacated on jurisdictional grounds, and Congress repeatedly amended the law to reestablish jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PSJVTA’s personal jurisdiction provision over PLO/PA in ATA cases violates Fifth Amendment due process	PSJVTA is constitutional; Congress may tie jurisdiction to conduct implicating U.S. interests and foreign policy	Such jurisdiction is unconstitutional without sufficient minimum contacts; Fourteenth Amendment standards should apply	The PSJVTA does not violate Fifth Amendment; federal jurisdiction may attach where statute reasonably ties to conduct involving the U.S. and sensitive foreign policy
Should the Fourteenth Amendment “minimum contacts” standard apply to Fifth Amendment due process for federal courts?	No; federal sovereign power is broader, interstate federalism concerns are irrelevant	Yes; the due process language is the same and protections should mirror each other	No; Fifth Amendment due process allows a more flexible standard—minimum contacts test not imported
Are reasonableness/fairness concerns equivalent under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?	Federal interests, not state interests, predominate; fairness analyzed differently	Individual liberty and fairness dictate similar substantive limitations should apply	Fifth Amendment inquiry is independent; federal interests and statute’s design satisfy any reasonableness test
Does the PSJVTA confer personal jurisdiction based on legitimate predicate conduct?	Conduct targeted by statute is sufficiently related to the U.S., Congress can tie jurisdiction to these activities	Jurisdiction triggers are too remote and do not amount to purposeful availment of U.S. courts	Yes; triggers (terrorism payments, U.S. operations) are sufficiently connected to U.S. interests

Key Cases Cited

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishing the minimum contacts standard for state court personal jurisdiction)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (articulating fairness and federalism reasons behind minimum contacts requirement)
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351 (discussing specific vs. general jurisdiction)
Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378 (distinguishing federal and state sovereign powers in constitutional analysis)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 582 U.S. 255 (limiting state court personal jurisdiction and reserving Fifth Amendment question for federal courts)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (reasonableness in personal jurisdiction)