Fuld v. The Palestine Liberation Organization, 578 F.Supp.3d 577

Background

Plaintiffs are the wife and four children of Ari Fuld, a U.S. citizen killed in a 2018 stabbing in the West Bank; they sue the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) as amended by the PSJVTA seeking monetary damages.
Prior litigation (notably Waldman v. PLO) and Supreme Court precedent (Daimler) established that the PLO and PA were not "at home" in the U.S. and that the terrorist acts lacked the required U.S. nexus for specific jurisdiction.
Congress enacted the PSJVTA to add two "deemed consent" bases for personal jurisdiction in ATA suits: (1) payments to prisoners’ designees or families of deceased terrorists after April 18, 2020, and (2) establishing/maintaining U.S. offices or activities in the U.S. after January 4, 2020 (with exceptions).
Plaintiffs allege Defendants met both PSJVTA prongs (payments and U.S. presence/activities); Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and challenged the PSJVTA’s constitutionality.
The Court held that PSJVTA’s deemed-consent provisions, as applied here, violate the Due Process Clause because Congress cannot simply "deem" unrelated conduct to constitute a defendant’s knowing and voluntary consent to suit in U.S. courts; the complaint was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PSJVTA’s "deemed consent" to personal jurisdiction satisfies Due Process	Fair notice + opportunity to avoid the predicate conduct makes statutory "deemed consent" knowing and voluntary	Congress cannot convert unrelated conduct into constitutionally valid consent; Due Process requires actual knowing and voluntary consent tied to the forum	PSJVTA’s deemed-consent (as applied here) violates Due Process; cannot constitutionally infer consent from the alleged conduct
Whether "martyr payments" (PSJVTA §2334(e)(1)(A)) with no U.S. nexus can constitute consent	Payments satisfy the statute and thus constitute consent to ATA suits in U.S. courts	Payments lack meaningful connection to the U.S. and cannot signal intent to submit to U.S. jurisdiction	Payments are too remote from the U.S. to be a constitutional proxy for consent; cannot support jurisdiction here
Whether limited U.S. offices/activities (PSJVTA §2334(e)(1)(B)) suffice to show consent	Alleged U.S. consular services, press conferences, materials distribution, and offices provided notice and voluntary choice	Alleged U.S. activities are too thin and contested to show consent or sufficient contacts	As alleged, U.S. activities are too limited to support an inference of knowing, voluntary consent; Court primarily relied on payments prong in ruling
Whether deference to political branches/foreign affairs permits expansive deemed-consent statutes	Congressional/Executive foreign-affairs judgments justify PSJVTA’s reach and constitutionality	Constitutional limits on individual rights and Due Process apply regardless of foreign-affairs context	Deference does not override constitutional limits; foreign-affairs interests do not permit Congress to abrogate Due Process via statutory "deeming"

Key Cases Cited

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum-contacts framework for personal jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction to where a corporation is "at home")
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (requires a connection between forum and the specific conduct for specific jurisdiction)
Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) (consent/waiver can support jurisdiction but must be knowing and voluntary)
College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. 666 (1999) (Congress may not "deem" waiver/consent of constitutional rights by statute without voluntariness)
Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org., 835 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2016) (vacated prior verdict for lack of personal jurisdiction; key precedent here)
Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) (statutory registration cannot be used to evade Daimler’s limits on general jurisdiction)
Chen v. Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., 954 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2020) (reinforces limits on using registration/statutory devices to expand jurisdiction)
J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (consent and conduct must show intent to benefit from and submit to forum’s laws)