This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Plaintiffs sued Facebook, Google, and Twitter, alleging the companies aided and abetted ISIS in the 2017 Reina nightclub attack under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal.
Background and question before the Court
In 2017, Abdulkadir Masharipov carried out a terrorist attack on the Reina nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey, on behalf of ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2) (JASTA), a plaintiff must show that the defendant knowingly provided substantial assistance to an act of international terrorism.
According to Justice Thomas, the Court identified the key legal question as whether knowledge of the specific Reina attacks is required for liability under JASTA.
What each side argues
Plaintiffs
According to Plaintiffs, plaintiffs allege that Facebook, Google, and Twitter aided and abetted ISIS, making them liable for the Reina nightclub attack.
Defendants
Defendants argue that merely providing a platform does not constitute culpability; the “act of international terrorism” element alone is insufficient for liability.
According to Defendant (Waxman), according to Defendant (Waxman), defendants contend that without specific knowledge of particular posts used to plan the attack, they cannot be found to have knowingly provided substantial assistance.
Amicus (Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler)
According to Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, as amicus, urged reversal of the district‑court dismissal.
According to Waxman and Mr. Kneedler, waxman and Kneedler argued that the JASTA statute could affect humanitarian and charitable organizations.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked whether the analysis required knowledge of the specific Reina attacks rather than general knowledge of terrorism.
Chief Justice Roberts asked for a clear answer on whether the statute covers the facts presented.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor expressed confusion about the need for a direct connection between assistance and the terrorist act.
Justice Jackson filed a concurrence noting that the Court’s decision is narrow in important respects.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 509657f4da255f99642e-r1-cdc4dd9267003bf8.pdfopinion
- d96ab25c8d5bc35d95ea-r1-dd6c3d8c307d304d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.