Palestinians Seek Supreme Court Stay Of $656M Judgment

The $656 million question nobody in Washington wants to answer A federal jury in Manhattan awarded $218.5 million in compensatory damages back in 2015. The Anti-Terrorism Act tripled it automatically. That's how you get to $656 million — a number that has hung over the Palestinian Authority and the PLO for nearly a decade. Now, in July 2026, their lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to hit pause.

Again. What is the Sokolow judgment The case is Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization*. Six attacks in Israel between 2002 and 2004.

Thirty-three American victims and their families. Shootings, bombings, a bus blown apart in Jerusalem. The plaintiffs argued the PA and PLO provided material support — money, safe haven, coordination — to the perpetrators. A jury agreed.

The Second Circuit initially threw out the verdict on jurisdictional grounds, saying U. S. courts couldn't haul the PA into court over attacks in Israel. The Supreme Court disagreed in 2021, ruling 8-1 that Congress had authorized exactly this kind of suit under the ATA.

The case went back down. The judgment stood. $656 million. With interest, it's higher now.

The Anti-Terrorism Act's teeth Congress passed the ATA in 1992. Amended it in 2004 and again in 2016 with the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). The core mechanism: if a U. S.

national is injured by an act of international terrorism, they can sue in federal court. Win, and damages are trebled. Mandatory. No judicial discretion.

That trebling provision is what turns a massive verdict into an existential one. The PA's annual budget hovers around $5 billion — heavily dependent on foreign aid. A $656 million judgment isn't just a legal loss. It's a fiscal crisis waiting to happen.

Why this matters beyond the courtroom Most people hear "Palestinian Authority sued for terrorism" and file it under "endless conflict. " But the Sokolow case sits at a weird intersection of U. S. law, foreign policy, and the actual mechanics of Palestinian governance.

The victims' side The plaintiffs aren't abstract. They're the family of Abigail Leitel, 14, killed on a bus. The parents of David Applebaum, a doctor, and his daughter Nava, murdered the night before her wedding. Real people.

Real grief. They've waited 20 years for accountability. Their lawyers argue the PA made a strategic choice during the Second Intifada — funding and facilitating attacks — and the bill has come due. The PA's side The Palestinian Authority says it wasn't a state in 2002-2004.

It had no control over Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives. The attacks were carried out by rogue elements, some of whom were on Israel's payroll as informants. They argue the ATA was never meant to apply to a non-state entity governing under military occupation. They also point out: no other country allows its courts to seize the assets of a foreign governing authority this way.

The U. S. government's headache Every administration since Obama has tried to make this go away. Not because they sympathize with the attacks — they don't.

Also related: Eleven Kilos of Cocaine Seized, One Arrest Made and WestJet Allows Flight Changes Amid Strike Threats.

But because a collapsed PA means a security vacuum in the West Bank. Hamas fills it. Israel gets more instability. The two-state solution (already on life support) gets buried deeper.

The State Department has filed amicus briefs. So has the Justice Department. They've argued for dismissal, for reduced damages, for anything that keeps the PA functioning. Congress, meanwhile, has done the opposite — strengthening the ATA twice.

How the stay request works The PA's petition for a stay pending certiorari is a procedural move. They lost in the Second Circuit (again) in early 2026. The mandate is about to issue. That means plaintiffs can start enforcing — seizing PA assets in the U.

S. intercepting aid flows, going after bank accounts. A stay freezes all that while the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case.

1. A reasonable probability the Court will grant cert
2. A significant possibility of reversal
3. Irreparable harm without a stay
4. The balance of equities favors them Number three is their strongest argument. Number two is the uphill climb. What the PA is actually arguing Their petition focuses on three questions: Personal jurisdiction revisited. The 2021 Supreme Court decision (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District*) refined the "specific jurisdiction" test. The PA argues the Second Circuit misapplied it — that the plaintiffs' claims don't arise out of the PA's U.S. contacts (a small office in Washington, some fundraising) but out of conduct entirely in the West Bank and Israel. ATA extraterritoriality. The presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law. The PA says the ATA doesn't clearly reach conduct by a foreign entity against U.S. nationals abroad. The Second Circuit said the treble-damages provision is domestic because the injury (to Americans) is domestic. The PA calls that a stretch. Due process and comity. A $656 million judgment against a foreign government-like entity, enforced in U.S. courts, raises separation-of-powers concerns. The executive branch manages foreign relations. Courts shouldn't bankrupt a quasi-sovereign entity the U.S. recognizes and funds. Common mistakes in how this gets covered "The PA was found guilty of terrorism" No. This was a civil trial. The standard was preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found the PA liable* for providing material support. That's a legal conclusion, not a criminal conviction. "The PA controls Hamas" They don't. Never did. The attacks were carried out by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The plaintiffs' theory was that the PA facilitated* — paying salaries to operatives, providing safe houses, coordinating through security chiefs who doubled as militia leaders. The jury bought it. But "PA = Hamas" is lazy shorthand. "This will destroy the PA" Maybe. But the PA has survived worse — the Second Intifada, Hamas's 2007 Gaza takeover, chronic budget crises, the Trump aid cutoff. They have options: negotiate a settlement, seek congressional relief, restructure debt. "Destroy" is a strong word for a quasi-government that's been teetering for 20 years. "The victims will never get paid" If the stay is denied and enforcement begins, the plaintiffs become judgment creditors. They can attach PA assets in the U.S. — real estate, bank accounts, maybe future aid flows. But the PA's U.S. assets are minimal. The