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
The plaintiffs are victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas between 2001 and 2003, and they sued BLO Bank SAL under the Anti‑Terrorism Act for allegedly aiding and abetting the attacks by providing financial services to Hamas‑affiliated customers.
The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case, holding that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances and that the standard does not become less demanding when the movant also seeks to amend the complaint; the Court further held that only the Rule 60(b) standard—not a hybrid with Rule 15(a)—applies to a motion to vacate a final judgment.
Background and question before the Court
The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
What each side argues
Plaintiffs’ Position
According to Plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would stand on their allegations as pleaded.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
The Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Second Circuit.
Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and that standard does not become less demanding when the movant also hopes to amend his complaint.
Only the Rule 60(b) standard—not a hybrid standard that blends Rule 60(b) and Rule 15(a)—applies when a party seeks relief from a final judgment.
The District Court was correct to treat the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate and amend as two distinct analyses, with the vacatur question under Rule 60(b)(6) preceding the repleading question under Rule 15(a).
Balancing the strict standards of Rule 60(b)(6) against the more relaxed standards of Rule 15 necessarily weakens the former and is incompatible with precedent that Rule 60(b)(6) should only be applied in extraordinary circumstances.
The judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- [1] 41da2ec3d0ef1d6faab8-r1-29b956d5b985309b.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 41da2ec3d0ef1d6faab8-r1-29b956d5b985309b.pdf, pp. 8–9
- [3] 41da2ec3d0ef1d6faab8-r1-29b956d5b985309b.pdf, p. 12
- [4] 41da2ec3d0ef1d6faab8-r1-29b956d5b985309b.pdf, p. 12
- [5] 41da2ec3d0ef1d6faab8-r1-29b956d5b985309b.pdf, p. 13
- [6] 41da2ec3d0ef1d6faab8-r1-29b956d5b985309b.pdf, p. 15
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.
- 41da2ec3d0ef1d6faab8-r1-29b956d5b985309b.pdfopinion
- 9a59e3a7af1aed0bc79c-r1-38722d5ecf26d2e3.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.