The plaintiffs in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman are U.S. nationals who were victims (or the family members of victims), of terrorist attacks by Hamas. They sued BLOM Bank, alleging that it aided and abetted the terrorist attacks by providing banking services to three customers alleged to be affiliates of Hamas. Under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), liability extends to “any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”

After plaintiffs declined several times to amend their complaint, the district court dismissed it with prejudice for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On appeal the Second Circuit clarified the standards for aiding and abetting liability under the ATA but affirmed dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiffs then asked the district court to vacate its judgment under Federal Rule 60(b)(6) and allow them to file an amended complaint under the clarified law. The district court denied the request, and the Second Circuit reversed.

In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (2023), the Supreme Court significantly tightened the rules for aiding and abetting liability under the ATA, but this case is not about those rules. Rather, the question presented is whether Rule 60(b)(6)’s requirement of extraordinary circumstances to justify reopening of final judgment applies to a request to vacate so that an amended complaint can be filed.