Case of the Day: Sokolow v. PLO

Woman being evacuated after a Jerusalem terror attack
Aftermath of a 2002 Palestinian terror attack in Jerusalem. Credit: Times of Israel / Flash90

The case of the day is Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization (2d Cir. 2016). I wrote about a similar case, Safra v. Palestinian Authority, back in 2015. The gist of the earlier case, which was decided in Washington, was that the Palestinian Authority could not be sued for damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it was not subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The irony in Safra was that in order to prevail, the PA had to argue that it wasn’t a state, since states are always subject to the personal jurisdiction of the district courts in cases where an exception to FSIA immunity applies. That’s not a legal argument the supporters of unilateral declarations of Palestinian statehood are likely to want to trumpet, but it carried the day.

It carried the day in today’s case of the day, too, this time in a court of appeals. The Second Circuit vacated a judgment on a jury verdict for more than $600 million against Palestinian governmental defendants, remanding with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The court turned away an interesting but not very persuasive argument that the Supreme Court’s recent precedents restricting the test for general personal jurisdiction should apply only to cases under the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e., cases in state court or maybe cases in federal court arising under non-federal law), not to cases arising under the Fifth Amendment.

I suppose the PA has a very strong financial motive for ensuring that the United States continues to refuse to recognize Palestine as a state. If it is recognized, the door is opened to large judgments for damages arising from PA-sponsored terrorism that the PA could ill-afford to pay. Indeed, as today’s case notes, the US government had to intervene to persuade the court to reduce the supersedeas bond amount to a fraction of the ordinary amount so that the defendants would be able to pay.

3 responses to “Case of the Day: Sokolow v. PLO”

  1. […] and therefore entitled to FSIA sovereign immunity, while in Safra v. Palestinian Authority and Sokolow v. PLO, it took the contrary position in order to assert lack of personal jurisdiction (since in those […]

  2. […] examples of this surprising and perhaps cynical view, on the part of the Palestinian authorities, before. The question was whether the same rule that applies to states should nevertheless apply to the PA […]

  3. […] 2016), a case argued after Palestine’s accession to the Rome statute, which I wrote about in September 2016, the court vacated a $650 million judgment on a jury verdict on similar grounds. Now, the issue is […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.