USA
US Supreme Court rules families of terror victims can sue PA over ‘pay-for-slay’
Legal experts have suggested the ruling could ‘bring about the financial demise’ of the governing faction in Ramallah
June 26, 2025 14:40
Legal experts have suggested the ruling could ‘bring about the financial demise’ of the governing faction in Ramallah
June 26, 2025 14:40The US Supreme Court has ruled that the families of terror victims can sue the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the American court system.
The decision, which saw all nine justices rule in favour of the plaintiffs (though only partly in Neil Gorsuch’s case), revived a number of suits against the authority and could have a serious impact on its finances
Central to the case was the issue of the so-called “pay-to-slay” scheme, in which the PA made payments to Palestinians convicted of violent offences against Israelis (or to their families) to sustain them while in prison.
The court ruled that, in cases where the victims were American citizens, US courts had jurisdiction to hear civil damages claims agains the PA and PLO under the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) 2019.
In 2015's Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization, a jury found the PLO and the PA liable for seven terrorist attacks in Israel, awarding the plaintiffs $218.5 million. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1990, that tripled to $655.5 million.
An appeals court threw out the Sokolow case in 2016, accepting the argument of the defendants that federal courts lacked overseas jurisdiction on civil cases, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 2018.
However, last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in Fuld v PLO that the imposition of US jurisdiction under the PSJVTA did not violate the due process requirements laid out in the Fifth Amendment and, therefore, that American citizens had the right to bring such cases in US courts.
Legal expert, and IDF reserve, Maurice Hirsch told JNS that the decision could “potentially bring about the financial demise of the PA".
The sums involved are “massive,” he said, noting that the Anti-Terrorism Act automatically triples damages in terror-related cases..
“There were only for a handful of cases then,” he said of the Sokolow cases. “Now there are dozens more.”
Miriam Fuld, whose American-Israeli husband Ari was stabbed in a terror attack in the West Bank and in whose name the case was brought, said: “As time went by, my kids kept saying, ‘Oh, well, if they're deliberating for so long, maybe that's not a good sign.’
"But I was definitely very surprised, as we all were, that it was a unanimous decision.”
Ari Fuld was murdered in 2018 by a Palestinian teenager, who stabbed him in the back at a shopping mall at the Gush Etzion Junction in the West Bank. The killer was apprehended after Ari, in his final moments, shot and wounded him but was subsequently released in a hostage deal during a ceasefire in the Gaza War.
“The Supreme Court just gave us the green light. Now we need to go back to the beginning and continue the case,” said Miriam. The decision overturned one by New York’s Second US Circuit Court of Appeals, which found, as in the Sokolow case, that US courts did not have jurisdiction, but it did not rule on the merits of Fuld’s civil suit.
The recent decision “will enable any US citizen to seek out justice against Palestinian terror,” she said. “I think that's the most important thing here. This is exactly the essence of what Ari stood for. He was fighting for truth and fighting for justice.”
For Hirsch, the main takeaway is how determined the PA is to continue with its "pay-for-slay" programme, even if it costs it legitimacy and funding and risks bankrupting it.
“This legislation provided the PA with an ultimatum,” he said. “Avoid incentivising and rewarding terrorism or face the consequences.
The PA had every opportunity to stop the payments, and they positively chose to reject that option.”