## Facts

- Plaintiffs were the heirs and survivors of Aharon Ellis, a U.S. citizen killed in a January 2002 shooting attack at a family celebration in Hadera, Israel.
- Plaintiffs alleged the attack was planned and executed by individuals acting with the direction, assistance, or support of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian Authority (PA), and associated leaders and operatives.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq., and related common-law tort theories, seeking civil damages for the killing.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b), arguing (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the PLO and PA allegedly enjoyed sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) as organs/agencies of the “state of Palestine,” and (2) dismissal under the political-question doctrine.
- The opinion addressed only sovereign-immunity/subject-matter jurisdiction and the political-question defense; personal-jurisdiction issues were reserved for later proceedings.
- In assessing the FSIA argument, the court considered the asserted statehood of “Palestine,” including the 1988 declaration of independence and subsequent interim self-government agreements allocating substantial security and foreign-affairs control to Israel and limiting the PA’s external relations authority.

## Issues

1. Whether “Palestine” qualifies as a “foreign state” within the meaning of the FSIA.
2. If so, whether the PLO and PA qualify as “agencies or instrumentalities” of that foreign state entitled to FSIA immunity.
3. Whether the United States’ non-recognition of Palestine as a state prevents the PLO and PA from invoking FSIA sovereign immunity.
4. Whether the claims are non-justiciable under the political-question doctrine because they implicate foreign relations and statehood determinations.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.
- The court held that “Palestine” was not a “foreign state” for FSIA purposes on the record presented; consequently, the PLO and PA could not claim immunity as agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state.
- The court further held that U.S. non-recognition of Palestine as a state was determinative for FSIA analysis and the judiciary would not confer state status indirectly through immunity.
- The court rejected the political-question defense, concluding the FSIA and related doctrines supplied manageable legal standards for resolving jurisdiction and immunity.
- The case was permitted to proceed, with personal-jurisdiction questions left for later determination.

## Legal Principles

- The FSIA is the exclusive basis for determining whether a foreign state (and its agencies or instrumentalities) is immune from suit in U.S. courts, subject to statutory exceptions.
- For FSIA purposes, the existence of a “foreign state” may require assessing statehood attributes recognized in international practice (e.g., defined territory, permanent population, effective government, and capacity to conduct foreign relations), including whether governance and external sovereignty are meaningfully independent.
- U.S. courts defer to the political branches on recognition of foreign states; an entity not recognized by the United States generally cannot obtain FSIA immunity through judicial findings that effectively amount to recognition.
- A case is not a political question merely because it involves foreign affairs; where Congress has supplied standards (such as the FSIA) and the court is applying law rather than setting policy, adjudication is proper under Baker v. Carr.

## Conclusion

The court kept the ATA and related tort claims in federal court by holding that the PLO and PA could not invoke FSIA sovereign immunity because Palestine was not treated as a recognized foreign state for FSIA purposes, and by ruling that the jurisdictional and immunity questions were legally manageable rather than barred by the political-question doctrine.


Knox v. Palestine Liberation Org., 306 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)