By: Yisroel David

In a decision reverberating across the legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical spheres, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinstated a $655.5 million judgment against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, reviving one of the most consequential terrorism-related civil cases in modern American jurisprudence. The ruling, issued on Tuesday, restores a landmark jury verdict that had been previously vacated and reaffirms the ability of American victims of international terrorism to seek redress in United States courts.

The case, known as Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization, has traversed a complex legal trajectory spanning more than a decade, encompassing jury findings, appellate reversals, congressional intervention, and ultimately a decisive ruling by the Supreme Court that reshaped the jurisdictional landscape governing foreign entities accused of terrorism.

The origins of the case lie in a series of devastating attacks carried out in Israel between 2001 and 2004, during a period marked by heightened violence and instability. American citizens were among those killed and injured in seven separate incidents, including suicide bombings and coordinated shootings that targeted civilians in public spaces. Among the most harrowing of these was a bombing in a Jerusalem shoe store in 2002, an attack that underscored the indiscriminate nature of the violence.

In response, affected families—many of whom were dual American citizens—filed suit under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a federal statute that permits U.S. nationals to pursue civil damages against those responsible for acts of international terrorism. The plaintiffs alleged that the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization had provided material support, operational backing, or direct involvement in the attacks.

After years of litigation, a Manhattan federal jury in 2015 rendered a decisive verdict. The panel found the defendants liable and awarded damages totaling $218.5 million. Under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, that sum was automatically trebled, resulting in a final judgment of $655.5 million.

At the time, the verdict was hailed as a significant victory for victims seeking accountability beyond criminal prosecutions. Yet the triumph proved short-lived.

In 2016, the Second Circuit overturned the jury’s decision, concluding that U.S. courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian entities. The appellate court reasoned that the alleged conduct, while grave, had occurred outside U.S. territory and did not sufficiently establish the defendants’ connection to the United States.

This ruling struck at the heart of the plaintiffs’ case and raised broader questions about the reach of American law in addressing international terrorism. For many observers, the decision highlighted a critical gap in the legal framework—one that allowed foreign organizations to evade civil liability in U.S. courts despite causing harm to American citizens.

The reversal introduced a period of legal uncertainty, leaving victims without a clear path to enforcement and prompting renewed debate over the appropriate balance between jurisdictional principles and the pursuit of justice.

In response to these concerns, lawmakers enacted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, a statute designed to address the jurisdictional limitations identified by the courts. The legislation established a novel legal mechanism: foreign entities could be deemed subject to U.S. jurisdiction if they engaged in certain activities within the United States, including maintaining offices or accepting specific forms of assistance.

Crucially, the law also linked jurisdiction to controversial financial practices attributed to the Palestinian Authority, often referred to as “pay-for-slay” programs—payments made to individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses or their families. By tying jurisdiction to these ongoing activities, Congress sought to create a continuing nexus between the defendants and the United States.

The statute represented a significant expansion of the legal tools available to victims and reflected a broader shift toward holding foreign actors accountable through civil litigation.

The constitutionality of this legislative approach was challenged, ultimately reaching the United States Supreme Court. In a pivotal 2025 decision, the Court upheld the statute, affirming Congress’s authority to define the jurisdictional parameters under which foreign entities may be brought before U.S. courts.

This ruling marked a turning point in the Sokolow case. By validating the legal foundation for jurisdiction, the Supreme Court effectively cleared the way for the reinstatement of the original verdict.

The decision also carried far-reaching implications, signaling a willingness by the judiciary to accommodate legislative efforts aimed at expanding accountability for international terrorism.

Against this backdrop, the Second Circuit’s 2026 ruling represents the culmination of years of legal maneuvering. By reinstating the $655.5 million judgment, the court has restored the plaintiffs’ victory and reaffirmed the principle that American victims may seek compensation from foreign entities implicated in acts of terrorism.

The decision is notable not only for its financial magnitude but also for its symbolic significance. It underscores the resilience of the plaintiffs and their determination to pursue justice despite formidable legal obstacles.

Moreover, the ruling establishes a precedent that may influence future cases, providing a roadmap for navigating the complexity of jurisdictional challenges in transnational litigation.

With the judgment reinstated, attention now turns to enforcement—a process that is often fraught with practical and legal difficulties. Plaintiffs may seek to attach or seize assets belonging to the Palestinian Authority within the United States, a step that could prove both complex and contentious.

The availability of such assets, as well as the legal mechanisms for securing them, will play a critical role in determining the ultimate impact of the ruling. Enforcement efforts may also intersect with diplomatic considerations, given the sensitive nature of U.S. relations with Palestinian institutions.

Nonetheless, the reinstatement of the judgment provides victims with a tangible avenue for redress, transforming what was once a symbolic victory into a potentially enforceable remedy.

The Sokolow case stands as a defining moment in the evolution of terrorism-related litigation. It illustrates the ability of the legal system to adapt in response to emerging challenges and highlights the interplay between legislative innovation and judicial interpretation.

For victims and their families, the ruling represents a measure of closure, albeit one tempered by the enduring realities of loss and trauma. For policymakers and legal scholars, it offers a compelling case study in the complexities of applying domestic law to international conduct.

The decision also raises broader questions about the role of civil litigation in addressing acts of terrorism. While criminal prosecutions remain a central point of accountability, civil suits provide an additional avenue for victims to seek justice and compensation.

Beyond its legal ramifications, the ruling carries significant geopolitical implications. The imposition of substantial financial liability on the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization may influence their international standing and economic situation.

It may also affect diplomatic relations, particularly in the context of ongoing efforts to stabilize the region. The intersection of legal accountability and political negotiation presents a delicate balance, one that will require careful navigation in the months and years ahead.

At the same time, the decision sends a clear message regarding the United States’ commitment to combating terrorism and supporting its citizens. By affirming the right of victims to seek redress, the court has reinforced a broader policy objective of deterring acts of violence through legal accountability.

The reinstatement of the $655.5 million judgment in Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization represents a landmark achievement in the pursuit of justice for victims of international terrorism. It reflects the convergence of legal persistence, legislative action, and judicial affirmation, culminating in a decision that resonates far beyond the confines of the courtroom.

For the families who brought the case, the ruling is both a vindication and a testament to their unwavering resolve. For the legal community, it serves as a powerful reminder of the evolving nature of jurisdiction and the potential for innovation in the face of complex challenges.

As enforcement efforts proceed and the broader implications of the decision unfold, one fact remains clear: the pursuit of justice, even across borders and over many years, can ultimately prevail.