## Facts

- Terrorist organizations including HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade (AAMB), and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) carried out suicide bombings and other attacks aimed at Israeli civilians.
- More than 1,600 plaintiffs—U.S. nationals and foreign nationals (many Israeli citizens, among others)—sought damages for deaths and injuries from those attacks.
- Plaintiffs sued Arab Bank, PLC, a bank operating in, among other places, the Palestinian territories.
- Plaintiffs alleged Arab Bank knowingly provided banking and administrative services to organizations identified by the U.S. government as terrorist organizations and to persons and entities tied to those groups.
- The alleged services included maintaining accounts, processing transfers, routing funds from alleged front entities and charities, and administering “martyr” payment programs that allegedly paid families of deceased or imprisoned militants.
- U.S.-national plaintiffs asserted claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA); foreign-national plaintiffs asserted claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) based on alleged law-of-nations violations (including genocide and crimes against humanity), along with related federal common-law tort claims.
- Arab Bank moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), arguing in part that conduct labeled “terrorism” was not an actionable violation of the law of nations because international law lacked a settled, widely accepted definition of “terrorism.”

## Issues

1. Whether the foreign-national plaintiffs’ ATS allegations identified sufficiently definite, widely accepted law-of-nations norms (such as genocide and crimes against humanity) rather than an indeterminate “terrorism” norm.
2. Whether allegations that a bank knowingly provided financial and administrative services to organizations that carried out deliberate attacks on civilians could support ATS liability, including on a secondary-liability (aiding-and-abetting) theory.
3. Whether the complaints plausibly stated ATA claims by U.S. nationals based on the bank’s alleged knowing provision of financial services tied to acts of international terrorism.
4. Whether the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the ATS claims because the pleaded international-law norms were not actionable under the ATS framework.

## Decision

- The court denied Arab Bank’s motion to dismiss in substantial part.
- The court rejected the bank’s broad argument that the ATS claims failed simply because “terrorism” lacks a single, settled definition in international law, and instead focused on whether the pleaded conduct fit established international-law prohibitions (including genocide and crimes against humanity).
- The court held that the foreign-national plaintiffs adequately pleaded ATS claims grounded in recognized law-of-nations norms tied to the alleged intentional attacks on civilians and large-scale violence against a civilian population.
- The court permitted the ATS claims to proceed on allegations that the bank knowingly provided substantial assistance through banking and administrative services to the alleged perpetrators and sponsors of those international-law violations.
- The court allowed the U.S.-national plaintiffs’ ATA claims to proceed, relying on the court’s prior treatment of similar ATA allegations against Arab Bank in related litigation.
- The court permitted related federal common-law tort claims to go forward to the extent they were based on the same alleged conduct and injuries.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs’ favor.
- Under the ATS, federal courts may hear claims by aliens for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations only where the asserted norm is specific, universal, and obligatory (as described in *Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain*).
- A claim is not defeated merely because “terrorism” as a label is disputed; the proper inquiry is whether the alleged acts match settled international-law prohibitions (for example, genocide or crimes against humanity).
- The ATS can reach secondary liability where plaintiffs plausibly allege knowing, substantial assistance to the commission of actionable international-law violations.
- Under the ATA, allegations that a defendant knowingly provided financial services to entities engaged in acts of international terrorism can be sufficient at the pleading stage, including where plaintiffs plead a causal connection between the support and the injuries.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction under the ATS turns on whether the complaint pleads a viable law-of-nations violation; where it does, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is not warranted at the pleadings stage.

## Conclusion

*Almog v. Arab Bank* largely refused to dismiss claims that Arab Bank knowingly provided banking and administrative support connected to suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli civilians, holding that plaintiffs plausibly pleaded ATA claims by U.S. nationals and ATS claims by foreign nationals grounded in recognized international-law norms (including genocide and crimes against humanity), rather than an abstract, free-standing “terrorism” norm.


Almog v. Arab Bank, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257 (2007)