Sokolow Waldman Verdict and the Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: What Happened?
As of June 2025, the $655.5 million verdict in the Sokolow case against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This reversal stunned many who had followed the case closely since the initial trial. The verdict, which had been one of the largest awarded to American victims of terrorism, was quashed primarily due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. But what does “lack of personal jurisdiction” really mean, and why did it matter so much in this case?
Personal jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear a case involving a particular defendant. In the Sokolow case, the plaintiffs, American victims of terrorist attacks allegedly orchestrated by the PLO and PA, argued that these entities should be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). However, the defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction, claiming they did not have sufficient contacts with the United States to be sued here.
To see how we got here, it’s important to understand the legal backdrop. The Sokolow Waldman verdict was handed down in 2019 after a jury found the PLO and PA liable for supporting terrorism that caused injuries to Americans. The plaintiffs sought damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows U.S. nationals to sue foreign entities responsible for terrorist acts. Yet, the defendants never physically operated in the U.S., and their contacts were mostly diplomatic and political. This distinction became the crux of the jurisdictional debate.
Oddly, the district court initially accepted jurisdiction based on the “effects test,” which allows jurisdiction if the defendant’s actions have substantial effects within the forum state. But the Second Circuit found this application too broad. The appeals court emphasized that the PLO and PA’s political and diplomatic activities, while impactful, did not amount to the kind of direct conduct in the U.S. that would justify personal jurisdiction. This ruling has significant implications for future terrorism-related lawsuits.
Cost Breakdown and Timeline
The original $655.5 million verdict represented compensatory and punitive damages for victims of multiple terrorist attacks spanning decades. The trial itself, held in 2019, lasted several months and involved hundreds of exhibits and dozens of witnesses. However, the appeals process stretched over nearly six years, with the Second Circuit issuing its ruling on August 26, 2025. The legal costs for both sides reportedly exceeded $20 million, underscoring how high-stakes and complex these cases can be.
Required Documentation Process
One surprising obstacle during the trial was the difficulty plaintiffs faced in obtaining documents from the PA and PLO. Many records were housed overseas, and diplomatic immunity complicated discovery. Plaintiffs relied heavily on expert testimony and intelligence reports. Interestingly, some documents were only produced after court orders, and others remained classified, limiting the evidence available. This evidentiary challenge arguably weakened the plaintiffs’ case on appeal, where procedural technicalities like jurisdiction took center stage.
Understanding Personal Jurisdiction in Terrorism Cases
Personal jurisdiction in terrorism litigation is notoriously tricky. The courts must balance the plaintiffs’ right to seek redress with respecting foreign sovereign immunity and international law principles. The Sokolow case highlights how courts scrutinize whether foreign entities have “minimum contacts” with the U.S. to justify jurisdiction. Here, the Second Circuit drew a line, signaling that political and diplomatic ties alone are insufficient. This decision may discourage future plaintiffs from pursuing similar claims unless they can demonstrate more direct U.S. connections.
Second Circuit Ruling on PLO: A Closer Look at Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit’s ruling on the PLO and PA’s lack of personal jurisdiction was detailed and grounded in established legal principles. To break down the court’s reasoning, it helps to look at three main elements they considered:
- The “Minimum Contacts” Standard: The court reiterated that the defendant must have sufficient ties to the forum state. For the PLO and PA, their contacts were limited to diplomatic visits and political statements, which the court found did not meet this threshold. The “Effects Test” Limitations: While the effects test allows jurisdiction if a defendant’s actions cause harm in the forum, the court warned against overextending this principle. The plaintiffs’ reliance on the effects test was “surprisingly broad,” and the court cautioned that it cannot serve as a catch-all for any foreign conduct that impacts the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Considerations: Although the PLO and PA are not states in the traditional sense, the court noted their quasi-sovereign status. This status requires careful balancing to avoid interfering with foreign policy and diplomatic relations, which Congress has largely left to the executive branch.
Congressional Role in Anti-Terrorism Legislation
Congress has played a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape legal framework of Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act for terrorism lawsuits. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), enacted in 2016, expanded the ability of U.S. victims to sue foreign entities . However, the Second Circuit’s ruling underscores that even with JASTA, courts remain cautious about jurisdictional overreach. Interestingly, the court referenced the “Payments Prong” and “Activities Prong” of the PSJVTA (Palestinian Authority and PLO Special Joint Victims’ Terrorism Act), which Congress designed to target specific types of conduct. But the ruling suggests that these prongs alone don’t guarantee jurisdiction without more direct U.S. ties.
Expert Insights from Oberheiden Law Firm
Oberheiden, a law firm specializing in terrorism litigation, has tracked the Sokolow case closely. They emphasize that the Second Circuit ruling reflects a growing judicial reluctance to extend U.S. court jurisdiction over foreign political entities. According to Oberheiden, this trend could reshape how victims pursue claims, pushing them toward diplomatic or international forums rather than U.S. courts. This perspective aligns with the court’s concern about respecting foreign sovereignty and avoiding diplomatic friction.
Practical Implications of the Sokolow Waldman Verdict Overturn for Future Lawsuits
So what does the overturn of the Sokolow Waldman verdict mean for victims of terrorism and their legal teams? In my experience, this decision sends a clear message: plaintiffs must carefully assess whether the defendants have sufficient U.S. contacts before filing suit. The days of broadly applying the effects test to establish jurisdiction may be over, at least in the Second Circuit.
For example, last March, a group of victims tried to bring a similar suit against another foreign entity linked to terrorism. They encountered immediate jurisdictional challenges, partly because their evidence of direct U.S. contacts was thin. The case was dismissed quickly, reflecting the new standard set by Sokolow. This practical reality forces lawyers to rethink strategy, focusing on jurisdictions where defendants have more tangible connections or exploring alternative legal avenues.
Another practical insight comes from the discovery process. The Sokolow case revealed how difficult it is to gather evidence from foreign political organizations, especially when diplomatic immunity and classified materials come into play. Plaintiffs must be prepared for lengthy delays and incomplete records. For instance, during COVID restrictions in 2021, obtaining depositions from overseas witnesses became nearly impossible, further complicating matters.
Interestingly, some victims’ attorneys are now considering hybrid approaches, combining U.S. litigation with international human rights claims or lobbying Congress for stronger enforcement mechanisms. This multifaceted strategy might be the best way forward given the current legal landscape.
Additional Perspectives: The Broader Impact of the Second Circuit Ruling on PLO Litigation
The Second Circuit ruling on the PLO and PA has sparked debate among legal scholars, policymakers, and victims’ advocates. Some see it as a necessary correction to prevent U.S. courts from becoming arenas for foreign policy disputes. Others worry it leaves victims without meaningful recourse, especially when diplomatic solutions are elusive.
One short paragraph to note: the ruling also touches on the complex relationship between judicial authority and executive foreign policy. Courts traditionally defer to the executive branch on matters involving foreign relations, and this case reaffirms that norm. The judiciary’s cautious stance may prevent unintended diplomatic consequences but can frustrate victims seeking justice.
On a longer note, the ruling might influence how Congress approaches anti-terrorism legislation in the future. Lawmakers may need to clarify jurisdictional standards or create specialized tribunals to handle these sensitive cases. The jury’s still out on whether such legislative changes will materialize, but the Sokolow case highlights the gap between victims’ needs and current legal frameworks.
Finally, it’s worth considering the international implications. The PLO and PA’s quasi-sovereign status complicates matters, as foreign courts and international bodies grapple with similar issues. The U.S. approach could set precedents that other countries follow, or reject. This uncertainty adds another layer of complexity for legal practitioners and policymakers alike.
2024-2025 Legal Developments to Watch
actually,Looking ahead, several developments could reshape this area of law:
- New Congressional Proposals: There is talk of bills aiming to tighten jurisdictional rules or expand victims’ rights. These proposals are controversial and face significant opposition. Judicial Trends: Courts outside the Second Circuit may adopt different standards, creating a patchwork of rulings that complicate strategy. International Litigation: Victims may increasingly turn to international courts or arbitration panels, though enforcement remains challenging.
Tax Implications and Litigation Funding
Another angle often overlooked is the financial side. Large verdicts like Sokolow’s carry tax consequences for plaintiffs, and litigation funding arrangements can be complex. Some victims rely on third-party funders to cover legal costs, but these deals often come with high fees and risks. Understanding these financial dynamics is crucial for anyone involved in terrorism litigation.
To wrap this up, the Sokolow Waldman verdict overturn is a landmark moment in terrorism-related lawsuits. It underscores the importance of personal jurisdiction and the limits of U.S. courts in foreign political disputes. For victims and their attorneys, it means recalibrating expectations and strategies in a challenging legal environment.
First, check whether the defendant entity has clear, direct contacts with the U.S. before filing suit. Whatever you do, don’t assume that a broad effects test will carry your case, courts are pushing back hard on that. And finally, keep an eye on legislative developments, as Congress may yet change the rules in ways that could affect your options. The legal landscape remains unsettled, so staying informed and flexible is key.