By SARAH BEN-NUN, MATHILDA HELLER

AUGUST 4, 2026 11:19

Updated: AUGUST 4, 2026 16:41

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined on Monday to suspend a 655.5 million dollar verdict against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization tied to attacks during the Second Intifada that killed and injured Americans in Israel.

She turned down the emergency filing without comment and without referring it to the full bench. The move lets the plaintiffs keep pressing for payment while the PA and PLO ready a petition asking the Supreme Court to examine the verdict.

"The practical meaning is that the Palestinian Authority will be required to pay 655 million dollars to the victims of terrorism," Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, president of Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, told The Jerusalem Post.

Darshan-Leitner noted that the plaintiffs plan to target tax revenues Israel holds for the PA, including sums frozen because of payments the PA makes to security prisoners and families of attackers.

Those revenues consist of customs duties and other taxes collected by Israel under the Oslo framework, which the Palestinian groups have called a key source of income.

Congress changed law to allow cases against PA, PLO

"The judgment will be enforced against the Palestinian Authority's tax revenues and any other assets owned by the Palestinian Authority and the PLO," Darshan-Leitner said.

She added that other possible targets include investment holdings, accounts in Palestinian banks, and further financial or nonfinancial property of the organizations.

The PA and PLO had asked Sotomayor to stop collection during their appeal preparations, claiming the verdict should not have been revived after an earlier reversal and the close of the original case.

They also cautioned that enforcing such a large award could worsen the PA's fiscal troubles and interrupt schools, hospitals, sanitation, and security operations in the West Bank. Their filing noted nearly 5 billion dollars in accumulated debt and warned that seizing tax revenues held by Israel might impair basic functions.

The plaintiffs reject the idea that the judgment cannot be collected without collapsing the PA. Darshan-Leitner said the groups maintain multiple revenue streams and assets that can be pursued rather than demanding one lump-sum payment.

The lawsuit was filed by American victims and relatives of victims of shootings and bombings around Jerusalem from 2002 to 2004. The attacks killed 33 people and wounded hundreds.

The families sued under the US Anti-Terrorism Act, which permits American victims of international terrorism to seek damages in US courts. After a seven-week trial, a New York jury held the PA and PLO civilly responsible in 2015.

The jury awarded 218.5 million dollars, which was automatically tripled under the anti-terrorism statute to reach 655.5 million dollars.

The verdict was reversed in 2016 when the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that US courts lacked jurisdiction over the PA and PLO then. The Supreme Court declined to hear the families' appeal in 2018.

Congress later enacted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act in 2019. The statute opened a path for US courts to hear certain terrorism suits against the PA and PLO when they engaged in listed activities, such as qualifying payments to attackers or their families or specific US operations.

The PA and PLO contended the law breached their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument in June 2025, holding that Congress could create a limited avenue for American victims of overseas terrorism to sue in US courts.

After that ruling, the Second Circuit reinstated the 655.5 million dollar judgment on March 30. The court found restarting the case preferable to forcing victims to relitigate claims more than twenty years after filing.

The PA and PLO now maintain that the 2015 judgment became void once the prior proceedings ended and could not simply be restored years later after Congress altered the law. Their upcoming Supreme Court petition will challenge whether the Second Circuit could revive it.

Darshan-Leitner said the litigation has also influenced the PA's approach to payments for prisoners and families of attackers. The PA has stated its updated system rests on welfare needs rather than the offenses for which prisoners were convicted.

Darshan-Leitner called the distinction largely semantic yet noted the shift demonstrates the PA recognizes the financial exposure created by its payment policy.

"This semantic change will not absolve the PA of responsibility for terrorist attacks," she said. "But it shows that it understands that the payment policy has brought judgments worth hundreds of millions of dollars against it."

She added that the court decisions have clarified a route for American victims of terrorism to sue the PA and PLO in the United States, where anti-terrorism law allows damages far larger than those usually granted in Israeli proceedings.