When Terrorists Default, Should Courts Consider Personal Jurisdiction?
A case from last week, Kaplan v. Hezbollah, illustrates the intricacies of consent-based personal jurisdiction in the context of default judgments and raises questions about the due process rights of terrorist organizations (and other unpopular defendants). U.S. citizens injured by Hezbollah missile attacks in Israel sued under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA). Hezbollah did not enter…
Continue ReadingSection 230 and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
The Ninth Circuit opinion in Gonzalez v. Google (2021) raises important questions about how the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to immunity defenses invoked by social media companies under 47 U.S.C. § 230.Section 230 shields internet companies from civil liability for user-generated content hosted on their platforms. Gonzalezholds, effectively, that there is no conceivable application of…
Continue ReadingAfghan Central Bank Assets Should Be Immune in Cases against the Taliban
Victims of terrorist attacks who obtained default judgments against the Taliban have requested the turnover of Afghan central bank assets frozen by U.S. sanctions. Because these assets are protected by foreign sovereign immunity and because no exception to immunity is applicable, courts should not order the assets turned over to the judgement-creditor plaintiffs, despite the terrible injuries that they and their families have suffered.
Continue ReadingS.D.N.Y. Holds Consent-Based Personal Jurisdiction over the PLO Unconstitutional
The Southern District of New York recently held in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization that a federal statute subjecting the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) to personal jurisdiction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case adds to a growing list of important due process questions in transnational litigation.
Continue Reading- « Previous
- 1
- 2