PLO gets support of Trump admin in terrorism case
◗
Despite its bumpy relationship with the Palestinians, the Trump administration is siding with the Palestine Liberation Organization in urging the Supreme Court to reject an appeal from American victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East more than a decade ago.
The victims are asking the high court to reinstate a $ 654 million verdict against the PLO and Palestinian Authority in connection with attacks in Israel in 2002 and 2004 that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more.
The case was scheduled to be considered at the justices’ private conference on Thursday. A decision to reject the appeal could come as early as on Monday. If the court decides to hear the case, it could say so by the middle of this month.
The federal appeals court in New York tossed out the verdict in 2016. It said that US courts can’t consider lawsuits against foreign- based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the United States.
The victims sued under the Anti- Terrorism Act, signed into law in 1992. The law was passed to open US courts to victims of international terrorism, spurred by the killing of American Leon
Trump administration is siding with the PLO in urging the Supreme Court to reject an appeal from American victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East
◗ Victims are asking the high court to reinstate a $ 654 million verdict against the PLO and Palestinian Authority in connection with attacks in Israel in 2002 and 2004
Klinghoffer during a 1985 terrorist attack aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
The victims argued that offices the Palestinians maintain in the nation’s capital to promote their cause in speeches and media appearances and to retain lobbyists were sufficient to allow the lawsuit in an American court. The appeals court disagreed.
In late June, the justices asked the administration to weigh in on the case, as they often do in cases with foreign policy implications. The Justice Department filed its brief eight months later, saying there was nothing in the appeals court ruling to “warrant this court’s intervention at this time.”