Hillel Fuld is one of the Israelis I’ve followed on X for news and commentary since the October 7 massacres. Fuld moved with his family to Israel as a teenager. He is an Israeli American.
Following Fuld I learned that he lost his older brother to a terrorist attack in September 2018. A Palestinian terrorist stabbed Ari Fuld in the back and killed him at the Gush Etzion Junction in the southern West Bank. He is depicted in the thumbnail photo on the home page.
The widow of Ari Fuld sued the PLO in the United States for her husband’s death. Mrs. Fuld relied on the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act passed by Congress in 2019 (specifically 18 U.S.C § 2343(e)). The Act deems the PLO and the Palestinian Authority—if they engage in specified conduct—to have consented to personal jurisdiction in civil suits brought in the United States under the Antiterrorism Act.
Does the Act violate the Fifth Amendment in subjecting the PLO and the PA to the jurisdiction of the federal courts? Writing for an essentially unanimous Court in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, Chief Justice Roberts held that it does not.
This is how I found out about the case and the Court’s decision. It seems like a small world.
Ok so this is a big deal indeed.
My late brother Ari’s wife appealed to the Supreme Court and won. Unanimously.
Now any American citizen affected by Palestinian terror can sue the Palestinian authority in American courts.
Pretty unprecedented! Wow. https://t.co/hNl9pv7TiL
— Hillel Fuld (@HilzFuld) June 20, 2025
In Fuld v. PLO, decided June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court addressed a 2018 terrorist attack in the West Bank where Ari Fuld, an Israeli-American, was killed. His family sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), claiming the PLO and PA supported terrorism through payments to terrorists. Initially, courts dismissed the case, citing insufficient U.S. connections for jurisdiction.
Ilya Shapiro draws attention to Second Circuit Judge Steven Menashi’s dissent from the denial of rehearing by the court en banc (i.e., the full court). Judge Menashi thought his colleagues on the panel that decided the case got it wrong. Shapiro adds: “Menashi, who clerked for Justice Alito, really ought to be in the conversation for any high-court openings that arise during Trump II.”
1. Finally getting around to reading Fuld v PLO, the _unanimous_ Supreme Court opinion allowing civil suits against Palestinian purveyors of terror. A full and complete vindication of Second Circuit Judge Steven Menashi, who dissented from denial of rehearing…. pic.twitter.com/UjoharbqIl
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) June 23, 2025
