DAVE GORDON
In early April, a federal appeals court in New York reinstated a $655.5 million judgment against the PLO and Palestinian Authority, bringing a small group of American terror victims to the brink of the justice they have pursued for over two decades.
The case was brought by American citizens harmed in a wave of attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s. The decision revives one of the largest such awards ever awarded by a U.S. court over violence in Israel.
Supreme Court Reopens the Door
It comes on the heels of a June 2025 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reopened the door for such lawsuits against the Palestinian groups.
The lawsuit was filed in 2004 on behalf of ten American families whose loved ones were murdered or maimed in bombings and shootings in Jerusalem, during the Second Intifada. In 2015, a federal jury found the PLO and the Palestinian Authority responsible under the U.S. Anti‑Terrorism Act, and ordered them to pay $655.5 million in damages.
That verdict was later thrown out by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the Palestinian defendants were beyond the reach of U.S. courts. Everything changed after the Supreme Court upheld the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, a 2019 statute crafted to allow Americans injured in overseas terror attacks to bring claims against the PLO and Palestinian Authority under defined circumstances.
Pay for Slay
A central question in the case involved the Palestinian Authority’s controversial “pay for slay” program – monthly stipends and benefits paid to imprisoned terrorists and the families of those killed while carrying out attacks, including assaults that targeted American citizens.
Judges found that these payments, and other activities tied to U.S. interests, could help establish the jurisdictional connection needed for American courts to hear the case. After the Supreme Court’s decision, the appeals court concluded that the original 2015 judgment should stand. Rather than sending the parties back for another trial, the panel reversed its prior dismissal, and ordered that the earlier jury award be restored, saying this outcome aligned with the “plain import” of the high court’s decision.
The Plaintiffs
The families behind the case include relatives of those killed in the 2002 bombing at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem cafeteria; the family of a passenger who died in the 2003 bombing of Jerusalem’s bus No. 19; and several Americans wounded in attacks on Jaffa Road. Violence from the Second Intifada period claimed 33 lives and injured hundreds more. The lawsuit evolved into a test of how far Congress and the courts are willing to go in extending U.S. civil jurisdiction over international terrorism.
After the initial verdict was set aside, the plaintiffs – led by attorneys Nitsana Darshan‑Leitner (Director of Israel Law Center/Shurat HaDin) and Kent Yalowitz (partner at Arnold & Porter) – spent years pressing appeals and lobbying for legislation to allow their case to survive.
Shurat HaDin
Shurat HaDin–Israel Law Center is an Israeli nonprofit that uses civil litigation to pursue terror groups, state sponsors, and financial institutions accused of funding attacks. It has helped win significant judgments on behalf of terror victims’ families in courts worldwide.
Darshan-Leitner said the ruling marked a historic turning point in the fight against global terrorism.
“For more than 22 years, the victims and families in Sokolow v. PLO walked a long and unforgiving road, refusing to let time erode their demand for justice and closure. This ruling and reinstated verdict stands as proof that the pursuit of accountability for terror is not measured in months or even years—but in resolve,” Darshan-Leitner told Community Magazine.
“The Palestinian defendants waged a ‘war of attrition,’ filing delaying motion after motion, appeal after appeal. Yet the families’ perseverance and determination carried this case across decades, through setbacks and appeals, because they never surrendered their right to closure. In the end, justice endured, the truth endured, because the victims endured.”
Long Road to Justice
One plaintiff, Dr. Alan Bauer, an American biologist seriously wounded in a 2002 Jerusalem attack, told Ynet he “never imagined that the road to justice would be so long and winding. But we refused to give up.
“We promised ourselves we would see this case through to the very end. We were determined to hold accountable those who carried out acts of terror against us and to finally make them answer for their guilt and their crimes.”