Anti-Terrorism Act

Fuld: Right for the Wrong Reason

In a major decision interpreting Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023), the Second Circuit in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization held that personal jurisdiction may not be established by relying on the “deemed consent” provision of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (“PSJVTA”). A thorough review of the decision can…

Continue Reading

Second Circuit Rejects Consent-Based Jurisdiction over PLO

Last Friday, the Second Circuit issued much-anticipated decisions in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization, cases brought by U.S. nationals against the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) and Palestinian Authority (“PA”) for injuries sustained during terrorist attacks in Israel. After the Second Circuit held in an earlier decision in Waldman that…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Roundup (October Term 2022)

During its 2022 Term, which ended four weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided five cases with important implications for transnational litigation. The questions included whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applies to criminal proceedings; the standard for aiding and abetting under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA); whether states may exercise general personal jurisdiction over foreign…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Finds Tech Companies Not Liable for Terrorism

Last week, the Supreme Court decided two cases in which plaintiffs alleged that social media companies aided and abetted international terrorism. In the first case, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the Justices unanimous interpreted the Antiterrorism Act’s (ATA) provision on aiding and abetting to require conscious and culpable participation. Plaintiffs’ allegations that ISIS used defendants’ social…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Likely to Shield Internet Platforms from Liability for Terrorist Acts

On February 21 and 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two companion cases regarding the liability of internet platforms for terrorists’ use of their services. Gonzalez v. Google concerns the scope of immunity for internet companies under 47 U.S.C § 230, specifically whether that statutory grant of immunity covers a platform’s automated suggestions…

Continue Reading

Supreme Court to Consider Tech Companies’ Liability for Terrorism

On February 21 and 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases, Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, that raise questions about how a civil cause of action set forth in the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) applies when known terrorist organizations use social media services. Both cases involve terrorist attacks (in Paris…

Continue Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

UC Davis School of Law
wsdodge@ucdavis.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Cara Maines

NYU School of Law
Bio | Posts

Zachary Orr

Vanderbilt Law School
Bio | Posts

Carlos M. Vázquez

Georgetown University Law Center
Bio | Posts

Maggie Lee

The Human Trafficking Legal Center
Bio | Posts

Martina E. Vandenberg

The Human Trafficking Legal Center
Bio | Posts

Timothy R. Holbrook

Emory University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Anshu Garg

Emory University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Linda J. Silberman

New York University School of Law
Bio | Posts

Paul B. Stephan

University of Virginia School of Law
Bio | Posts

Rochelle C. Dreyfuss

NYU School of Law
Bio | Posts