For decades, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority have paid billions of dollars to promote, incentivize, and reward terror. As part of what is widely known as the PLO-PA’s “Pay-for-Slay” policy, thousands of terrorists and their families were paid cash rewards for their participation in terror.
Murderers, mass murderers, and the families of suicide bombers were among the payment recipients. While most of the victims were Israeli, dozens were also US citizens. Now, a hearing in the US Supreme Court could potentially hold the PLO and the PA accountable.
In 1992, Congress amended the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), as a response, albeit belated, to the 1985 murder of Leon Klinghoffer, who was murdered and thrown off a ship by Palestinian terrorists. The law was explicitly designed to allow American citizens who are victims of terrorist attacks abroad to sue the perpetrators in US courts.
Sokolow vs The PLO
Based on ATA, for decades, US victims of Palestinian terror tried to sue the PLO-PA in US courts. Those efforts were stymied by the decision in Sokolow vs The PLO.
In the Sokolow case – a civil suit submitted by US-Israeli citizens against the PLO, on behalf of terror victims murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the course of the PA-initiated terror war that started in September 2000 – a Manhattan jury found the PLO liable for terror and awarded the plaintiffs damages in the sum of $655 million.
The PLO appealed the decision, not denying its responsibility for the terror and the murders but rather questioning the jurisdiction of the US courts to adjudicate claims based on acts of terror perpetrated outside of the US.
Despite the explicit language of ATA, the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan accepted the appeal of the PLO and found that the district court lacked general personal jurisdiction over the PLO.
Since the decision was clearly at odds with ATA, Congress initially responded by passing the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA). The new legislation was very simple: Any recipient of US aid inherently agrees to the jurisdiction of the US court system.
PA rejects ATCA legislation
After the PLO-PA understood the potential ramifications of ATCA, PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah wrote to then-US secretary of state Michael Pompeo, saying: “In light of these developments, the Government of Palestine respectfully informs the United States government that, as of January 31, 2019, it fully disclaims and no longer wishes to accept any form of assistance referenced in ATCA.”
Soon after, ATCA was replaced with the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA).
Tailored to the “Pay-for-Slay” policy, PSJVTA provides that a defendant is seen to have agreed to personal jurisdiction if he “makes any payment, directly or indirectly” – “to any payee designated by any individual who… has been imprisoned for committing any act of terrorism that injured or killed a national of the United States, if such payment is made by reason of such imprisonment;” or “to any family member of any individual, following such individual’s death while committing an act of terrorism that injured or killed a national of the United States, if such payment is made by reason of the death of such individual.”
Following the passage of PSJVTA, the estate of Ari Fuld, together with others, filed civil suits in the US courts against the PLO-PA. Fuld, who held dual US and Israeli citizenship, was murdered on September 16, 2018, by a 16-year-old Palestinian terrorist who fatally stabbed him in the back.
Despite being convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the murder, Fuld’s murderer was recently released as part of the deal to secure the release of some of the hostages captured by Hamas during its October 7, 2023, massacre. Fuld’s murderer was among the recipients of the “Pay-for-Slay” terror rewards.
US Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal
While a Second Circuit Court initially found that PSJVTA violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, in December 2024 the US Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal. As part of the proceedings, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) submitted a comprehensive brief throwing its full weight behind the law.
To remedy the alleged breach of the US constitution, the DoJ argued, inter alia, that the PLO-PA was put on notice regarding the legislation and its implications, and “that making payments for terrorists who injured or killed Americans would provide a basis for US courts to exercise jurisdiction.”
The DoJ added that the PLO-PA “chose to prioritize their policy of continuing to make payments to terrorists and their families or designees over avoiding federal-court jurisdiction in ATA cases.”
The appeal was heard on April 1, 2025. If the Supreme Court does indeed affirm the constitutionality of PSJVTA, the decision would open the door for dozens of terror victims to sue the PLO-PA in US courts and could potentially result in judgments of hundreds of millions of dollars against the PLO-PA.
The writer is the director of the Palestinian Authority Accountability Initiative at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA). He served for 19 years in the IDF Military Advocate-General Corps. In his last position, he served as director of the military prosecution in Judea and Samaria.