Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act's (PSJVTA) jurisdictional provision violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court distinguished between the jurisdictional limits imposed by the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, emphasizing the broader authority of the federal government. The Court concluded that the PSJVTA reasonably ties jurisdiction to conduct involving the United States and sensitive foreign policy matters.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
The Court's analysis focuses on whether the PSJVTA's jurisdictional provision violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
The Court distinguishes between the jurisdictional limits imposed by the Fourteenth Amendment on state courts and those by the Fifth Amendment on federal courts, emphasizing the broader sovereign authority of the federal government.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Because the State and Federal Governments occupy categorically different sovereign spheres, we decline to import the Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts standard into the Fifth Amendment.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization
The Court defers to the political branches' judgment in foreign affairs, recognizing the Executive and Congress's coordinated action in passing the PSJVTA.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)In respectively passing and signing the PSJVTA into law, Congress and the President made a considered judgment to subject the PLO and PA to liability in U. S. courts as part of a comprehensive legal response to `halt, deter, and disrupt' acts of international terrorism.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization that support the summary and concepts above.
The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States.
The Federal Government's broader sovereign authority permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry.
