## Facts

- Eleven U.S. citizen plaintiffs (or representatives of U.S. citizens) sued for deaths and injuries from shootings and bombings in and around Jerusalem between 2002 and 2004.
- Plaintiffs brought federal claims under the Anti–Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), alleging the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) directly carried out the attacks or knowingly provided material support to terrorist organizations.
- The alleged tortious conduct, injuries, and operative events occurred abroad.
- Plaintiffs relied on U.S.-based contacts to support jurisdiction, including the PLO’s New York presence connected to United Nations-related activities and a Washington, D.C. mission with phone lines, bank accounts, commercial dealings, and U.S.-focused public relations and lobbying.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts could exercise general personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA based on their U.S. contacts after modern limits on general jurisdiction.
2. Whether federal courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction where the alleged terrorist attacks occurred abroad and the asserted U.S. contacts were not tied to the attacks.
3. Whether Fifth Amendment due process in a federal-question case with nationwide service permits broader personal jurisdiction than the Fourteenth Amendment framework.
4. If personal jurisdiction was lacking, whether the proper disposition was vacatur and dismissal.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held there was no general jurisdiction because the PLO and PA were not “at home” in the United States.
- The court held there was no specific jurisdiction because the claims arose from overseas attacks lacking a sufficient connection to U.S.-based conduct.
- The court rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment allows a more permissive personal-jurisdiction standard than the Fourteenth Amendment in this context.

## Legal Principles

- General jurisdiction over an entity is limited to forums where it is fairly regarded as “at home,” with only exceptional cases outside the paradigm locations.
- Ongoing U.S. operations, diplomatic activity, lobbying, public relations efforts, and certain commercial dealings do not by themselves make a foreign political entity “at home” for general jurisdiction.
- Specific jurisdiction requires an adequate connection between the forum-related contacts and the conduct that gives rise to the claims; unrelated U.S. contacts do not supply the needed nexus for foreign injuries.
- Due process constraints on personal jurisdiction apply comparably under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; nationwide service does not eliminate the constitutional requirement that the exercise of jurisdiction be consistent with due process.

## Conclusion

Because the ATA claims arose from attacks occurring entirely abroad and the defendants’ U.S. contacts did not render them “at home” or connect to the attacks, the Second Circuit concluded the Constitution barred both general and specific personal jurisdiction, vacated the trebled damages judgment, and ordered dismissal.


Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org., 835 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 2016)