October Term 2024 · Docket 24-20

Does the PSJVTA violate due process by forcing foreign entities to pay terrorism judgments?

the sides that brought the case argue the statute violates due process. the opposing sides claim it serves national security goals.

Official caption
Fuld v. PLO
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Yalowitz argued the U.S. can respond to terror abroad. He noted criminal prosecution would not violate due process.

    Mr. Berger argued the PSJVTA fails the due process test. He cited the Bauxites standard for legal submission.

    Mr. Kneedler argued the statute is integral to national security. He stated it secures compensation for terrorism victims.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether Congress can force foreign entities to pay terrorism judgments. The PSJVTA targets the PLO and PA. the sides that brought the case say this violates due process. the opposing sides say it protects U.S. citizens.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 1, 2025.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down the PSJVTA. They argue it violates due process rights.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold the PSJVTA. They argue it serves vital national security interests.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue the statute fails the due process test. They cite the Bauxites standard for constructive consent.

the opposing sides argue the statute is integral to foreign policy. They note the government could prosecute these acts criminally.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if the Fifth Amendment protects U.S. citizens here. She questioned why foreigner status matters.

Justice Barrett asked if minimum contacts analysis applies without a statute. She questioned the role of federalism in this context.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of congressional power over foreign entities. It determines whether victims can recover damages from state actors. The outcome shapes future terrorism litigation and foreign policy tools.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON