Shatsky v. Syrian Arab Republic, Civil Action No. 2002-2280

On Feb. 16, 2002 a suicide bomber killed two U.S. nationals and wounded others at a pizzeria in Karnei Shomron; plaintiffs (U.S. victims and representatives) sued the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under the Anti‑Terrorism Act (ATA) and related tort claims.
Plaintiffs’ theory: the PFLP (a PLO faction) planned and executed the attack using resources provided by the PA/PLO; key alleged links include PA employment/salary for Ra'ed Nazal (an alleged PFLP military leader), PLO payment of rent for a PFLP office in Qalqilya, and post‑attack payments to families (including the bomber’s).
Plaintiffs rely chiefly on: (a) an Israeli custodial statement by Mohammad Wasef implicating Nazal; (b) testimony by a PA intelligence official referencing media/intelligence connecting Nazal and the bomber; and (c) PFLP website material praising Nazal.
Defendants concede certain payments but contend those payments were legitimate (e.g., no‑show salaries intended to control militants) and deny admissible evidence tying defendants to the bombing.
Procedural posture: after prolonged discovery disputes and exclusion of numerous late‑produced exhibits, defendants moved for summary judgment; the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to reintroduce excluded materials and granted defendants’ motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction	Plaintiffs: defendants waived jurisdictional challenge by litigating for years	Defendants: renew challenge citing post‑hoc precedent shifts	Court: jurisdiction not forfeited; prior rulings stand; proceeds to merits
Standard of causation under ATA	Plaintiffs: ATA should use a relaxed causation rule in cases of fungible financial support	Defendants: ATA requires traditional proximate cause (substantial factor + foreseeability)	Court: adopts traditional proximate‑cause standard as articulated in Rothstein; plaintiff must show defendant’s acts were a substantial factor and foreseeable
Sufficiency/admissibility of evidence linking PA/PLO to attack	Plaintiffs: salary to Nazal, rent payments for Qalqilya office, and family payments directly or circumstantially facilitated the bombing	Defendants: the proffered documents/statements are hearsay or otherwise inadmissible and do not show proximate causation	Court: key documents (Wasef statement, media/intel summaries, PFLP website pages) are inadmissible hearsay; even accepted concessions (payments) insufficient for proximate causation; summary judgment for defendants
Capacity for state common‑law tort claims	Plaintiffs: PA/PLO can be sued on D.C. tort law (argue nonprofit association law)	Defendants: PA/PLO are unincorporated associations lacking capacity under D.C. law	Court: PA/PLO lack capacity to be sued on nonfederal tort claims; those claims dismissed

Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82 (2d Cir.) (2013) (interprets "by reason of" in ATA to incorporate traditional proximate‑cause test)
Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685 (7th Cir.) (2008) (advocates relaxed causation for fungible financial support to organizations that commit terrorism)
Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self‑Gov't Auth., 843 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir.) (2016) (addresses evidentiary/admissibility issues and jurisdictional questions involving PA/PLO)
Livnat v. Palestinian Auth., 851 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir.) (2017) (discusses status of PA/PLO and related jurisdictional/capacity matters)
Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) (explains proximate cause in statutory torts and use of "by reason of" language)
Bank of Am. Corp. v. City of Miami, 137 S. Ct. 1296 (2017) (statutory causes of action incorporate common‑law proximate‑cause principles)
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (statutory interpretation principle that transplanted legal terms bring settled meaning)