Justice thunders from the Supreme Court, shattering woke excuses for terror enablers. In a 9-0 ruling, the court upheld the 2019 Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, empowering Americans to sue the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization for attacks abroad, as Deseret News reports. No constitutional shield for those bankrolling bloodshed, says the bench.

The decision greenlights American victims of terror, or their kin, to haul the PA and PLO into U.S. courts for atrocities linked to their actions.

This reverses lower court rulings that coddled these groups, claiming the act violated their Fifth Amendment rights. A unanimous court called nonsense on that progressive hand-wringing.

Back in 2004, U.S. citizens sued the PA and PLO over injuries from a terrorist attack in Israel, leaning on the Anti-Terrorism Act.

A jury slammed the defendants with liability for six attacks, awarding $218.5 million, which ballooned to $655.5 million under the act’s treble-damages rule. But in 2016, the Second Circuit tossed the victory, whining about jurisdiction.

Early battles, stolen justice

The Second Circuit’s 2016 ruling was a gut punch to victims, letting the PA and PLO slink away from accountability. “U.S. courts lacked personal jurisdiction,” they sniffed, as if terror stops at borders. This judicial dodge set the stage for years of legal tug-of-war.

Fast forward to 2015, when 11 Americans, representing victims of attacks in Israel from 2002 to 2004, won over $650 million in a trial.

Yet, in 2022, New York courts played the same tired tune, ruling against plaintiffs and clutching the Fifth Amendment like a security blanket. The Biden administration, with a nod from Trump’s team, pushed back hard.

In 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman in New York declared the 2019 act unconstitutional, a decision the Second Circuit upheld. They argued the PA and PLO’s due process rights were sacred, even as victims’ families mourned. The Supreme Court’s Friday ruling torchlit that logic as flimsy.

Supreme Court slams door

Chief Justice John Roberts cut through the fog with precision. “It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision,” he wrote, ensuring terror victims can seek Anti-Terrorism Act compensation. No wonder progressives are sulking—this ruling prioritizes justice over diplomatic niceties.

Justice Clarence Thomas went further, questioning if the PA and PLO even qualify as “persons” under the Fifth Amendment. “I am skeptical that entities such as the Palestine Liberation Organization enjoy any constitutional rights,” he jabbed. That’s a zinger that’ll sting the woke legal crowd for years.

The court’s decision directly aids cases like that of Ari Fuld, an Israeli-American stabbed to death in the West Bank by a teen whose family allegedly pocketed PA “pay to slay” funds. Such payments, tied to terror, fueled lawsuits under the 2019 act. Victims’ families now have a clearer path to justice.

Victims’ long-awaited victory

The 2019 act was a lifeline for Americans targeted by terror, yet lower courts tried to snap it. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that the lifeline holds, letting victims confront those who fund or orchestrate attacks. No more hiding behind constitutional technicalities for the PA and PLO.

In 2025, PA President Mahmoud Abbas signed an order scrapping stipends for Palestinian security prisoners based on sentence length. Too little, too late -- lawsuits will now test whether such moves are genuine or just damage control. Skeptics aren’t holding their breath.

The 2004 case, where a jury awarded $655.5 million, underscores what’s at stake. The Second Circuit’s 2016 vacating of that judgment, citing jurisdiction, was a masterclass in legal hair-splitting. Oyez noted the jury’s finding of liability for six attacks, now vindicated by the Supreme Court’s clarity.

Justice over woke excuses

This ruling is a middle finger to those who would rather coddle terror backers than comfort victims. The Biden administration’s appeal, backed by Trump’s team, showed rare bipartisan spine against judicial overreach. Americans deserve courts that prioritize their pain over foreign entities’ gripes.

The Supreme Court’s 9-0 vote isn’t just a legal win; it’s a moral one. Families like Ari Fuld’s, or those from the 2002–2004 attacks, can now chase accountability without courts playing jurisdictional dodgeball. The PA and PLO face a reckoning, and it’s long overdue.

Conservatives cheer this as a blow to woke legalism, but it’s more than that -- it’s a promise kept to terror’s victims. The 2019 act stands tall, and so do those who’ve suffered. No constitutional loophole will deny them their day in court.