On April 1, 2025, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, which concerns the constitutionality of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA). That statute deems the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) to have consented to U.S. jurisdiction.
While the question presented is narrow (i.e., whether the PSJVTA violates the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), the questions asked by the Justices signal the potential for a broader holding concerning how U.S. courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign entities.
The Case at a Glance
In 2019, Congress passed the PSJVTA to bestow consent-based personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA because lower courts had declined to exercise jurisdiction. The statute provides two tests for whether the PLO and PA consented to jurisdiction: (i) they continue to make payments to terrorists or family members of terrorists; or (ii) they continue to maintain an office in, or conduct any activity while physically present in, the United States. Despite Congress’s action, the lower courts once again declined to exercise personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA.
The Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to rule that the PSJVTA is constitutional under the Fifth Amendment. Until recently, most courts assumed the Fifth Amendment requires the same “minimum contacts” analysis as the Fourteenth Amendment. The Petitioners argued that the United States, as a sovereign, does not face the same limits on its jurisdiction as the States.
The Argument
Argument lasted two hours and saw robust questioning from all of the Justices. Petitioners argued that under the Fifth Amendment, United States sovereignty follows its citizens when they travel across the globe. Thus, according to Petitioners, it would be constitutional to bring civil actions in the United States against foreign entities for harms directed at United States citizens abroad. The Government took a more measured approach, arguing that the PSJVTA’s consent-based jurisdiction is valid under Congress’s constitutional authority to weigh interests of national security and foreign policy. Thus, the PSJVTA was constitutional because its “jurisdiction-triggering” requirements were satisfied by “knowing and voluntary” conduct, which ensures that the “resulting submission to jurisdiction is fair and not exorbitant.”
The Justices’ questioning revealed a potentially stark divide. At one end of the spectrum is the possibility that the Fifth Amendment does not impose geographic limitations on the exercise of personal jurisdiction so long as Congress has legislated a basis for such jurisdiction. Several Justices commented that substantial deference is owed to Congress (and the Executive Branch) in such situations, particularly in the context of international terrorism. Questions from other Justices, however, suggested that the Court need not even reach the question of whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments embody different principles because the PLO and PA are alleged to have maintained a presence in the United States, which might suffice under current Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. And yet other questioning focused on the consent-based jurisdiction at the heart of the statute.
Why This Case Matters
As discussed above, the question presented to the Supreme Court in Fuld is framed narrowly. The questioning at oral argument, however, signals the potential for a more far-reaching holding that could impact the test for whether a U.S. court has personal jurisdiction over non-US entities and organizations under United States law broadly. Multinational corporations, international non-profits, and other non-U.S. entities and organizations should monitor this case, and its progeny, closely. Regardless of the outcome in Fuld, the contours and potential limits of the personal jurisdiction analysis are likely to be litigated aggressively as litigants in various contexts seek to hale more non-U.S. actors into United States courts.
What’s Next
A decision is expected by the end of the Supreme Court’s term in June. We will continue to monitor the case and expect to publish a longer analysis of the Court’s decision. If you are a client with international operations or interests, we recommend you stay informed about this case and its outcome. Should you have any questions about Fuld’s implications for your business, or require guidance on managing cross-border litigation risks, please do not hesitate to contact us.