Supreme Court will decide if Palestinian authorities can be sued in U.S. over attacks in Middle East
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to settle a years-long legal dispute over whether Palestinian authorities can be sued in U.S. courts by Americans killed or wounded in terrorism attacks in the Middle East.
The federal appeals court in New York has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, despite Congress’ efforts to allow the victims’ lawsuits to be heard.
That court’s latest decision, last year, struck down a law enacted in 2019 specifically to allow the lawsuits to move forward. The Supreme Court typically takes on cases in which lower courts have invalidated federal laws.
The question for the justices is whether the 2019 law is unconstitutional, as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found, because it denies fair legal process to the PLO and PA. The case probably will be argued in the spring.
Both the victims and the Biden administration had urged the high court to step in.
The attacks occurred in the early 2000s, killing 33 people and wounding hundreds more, and in 2018, when a U.S.-born settler was stabbed to death by a Palestinian assailant outside a busy mall in the West Bank.
The victims and their families assert that Palestinian agents either were involved in the attacks or incited them.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first ruled in 2016 against the victims of the attacks from 20 years ago, tossing out a $654 million jury verdict in their favor. In that earlier ruling, the appeals court held U.S. courts can’t consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the United States.
The victims had sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, signed into law in 1992. The law was passed to open U.S. courts to victims of international terrorism, spurred by the killing of American Leon Klinghoffer during a 1985 terrorist attack aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
The jury found the PLO and Palestinian Authority liable for six attacks and awarded $218 million in damages. The award was automatically tripled under the law.
After the Supreme Court rejected the victims’ appeal in 2018, Congress again amended the law to make clear it did not want to close the courthouse door to the victims.
The federal appeals court in New York has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, despite Congress’ efforts to allow the victims’ lawsuits to be heard.
That court’s latest decision, last year, struck down a law enacted in 2019 specifically to allow the lawsuits to move forward. The Supreme Court typically takes on cases in which lower courts have invalidated federal laws.
The question for the justices is whether the 2019 law is unconstitutional, as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found, because it denies fair legal process to the PLO and PA. The case probably will be argued in the spring.
Both the victims and the Biden administration had urged the high court to step in.
The attacks occurred in the early 2000s, killing 33 people and wounding hundreds more, and in 2018, when a U.S.-born settler was stabbed to death by a Palestinian assailant outside a busy mall in the West Bank.
The victims and their families assert that Palestinian agents either were involved in the attacks or incited them.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first ruled in 2016 against the victims of the attacks from 20 years ago, tossing out a $654 million jury verdict in their favor. In that earlier ruling, the appeals court held U.S. courts can’t consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the United States.
The victims had sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, signed into law in 1992. The law was passed to open U.S. courts to victims of international terrorism, spurred by the killing of American Leon Klinghoffer during a 1985 terrorist attack aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship.
The jury found the PLO and Palestinian Authority liable for six attacks and awarded $218 million in damages. The award was automatically tripled under the law.
After the Supreme Court rejected the victims’ appeal in 2018, Congress again amended the law to make clear it did not want to close the courthouse door to the victims.
Supreme Court rejects Wisconsin parents’ challenge to school guidance for transgender students
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Wisconsin parents who wanted to challenge a school district’s guidance for supporting transgender students.
The justices, acting in a case from Eau Claire, left in place an appellate ruling dismissing the parents’ lawsuit.
Three justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, would have heard the case. That’s one short of what is needed for full review by the Supreme Court.
Parents with children in Eau Claire public schools argued in a lawsuit that the school district’s policy violates constitutional protections for parental rights and religious freedom.
Sixteen Republican-led states had urged the court to take up the parents’ case.
Lower courts had found that the parents lacked the legal right, or standing. Among other reasons, the courts said no parent presented evidence that the policy affected them or their children.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals included two judges Republican Donald Trump appointed during his first term.
But Alito described the case as presenting “a question of great and growing national importance,” whether public school districts violate parents’ rights when they encourage students to transition or assist in the process without parental consent or knowledge.
“Administrative Guidance for Gender Identity Support” encourages transgender students to reach out to staff members with concerns and instructs employees to be careful who they talk to about a student’s gender identity, since not all students are “out” to their families.
The justices, acting in a case from Eau Claire, left in place an appellate ruling dismissing the parents’ lawsuit.
Three justices, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, would have heard the case. That’s one short of what is needed for full review by the Supreme Court.
Parents with children in Eau Claire public schools argued in a lawsuit that the school district’s policy violates constitutional protections for parental rights and religious freedom.
Sixteen Republican-led states had urged the court to take up the parents’ case.
Lower courts had found that the parents lacked the legal right, or standing. Among other reasons, the courts said no parent presented evidence that the policy affected them or their children.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals included two judges Republican Donald Trump appointed during his first term.
But Alito described the case as presenting “a question of great and growing national importance,” whether public school districts violate parents’ rights when they encourage students to transition or assist in the process without parental consent or knowledge.
“Administrative Guidance for Gender Identity Support” encourages transgender students to reach out to staff members with concerns and instructs employees to be careful who they talk to about a student’s gender identity, since not all students are “out” to their families.
Supreme Court rejects appeal from Boston parents over race bias in elite high school admissions
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Boston parents who claimed a temporary admissions exam policy for the city’s elite high schools discriminated against white students and those of Asian descent.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from their colleagues’ decision to leave in place lower court rulings in favor of the plan, which was used just once during the coronavirus pandemic. A third justice, Neil Gorsuch, said he also was troubled by the policy.
The Boston School Committee had temporarily dropped the entrance exam for Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy and the O’Bryant School of Math and Science because it was not safe to hold exams in-person during the pandemic.
Instead, the committee used student performance and ZIP codes to weigh admission.
A panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a June 2023 Supreme Court ruling striking down race-conscious college admissions policies did not doom Boston’s temporary policy.
Alito called the lower court ruling “a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action in defiance of” the high court’s decision last year.
Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote that it’s clear to him that race was “front and center” when the committee adopted new policy.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from their colleagues’ decision to leave in place lower court rulings in favor of the plan, which was used just once during the coronavirus pandemic. A third justice, Neil Gorsuch, said he also was troubled by the policy.
The Boston School Committee had temporarily dropped the entrance exam for Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy and the O’Bryant School of Math and Science because it was not safe to hold exams in-person during the pandemic.
Instead, the committee used student performance and ZIP codes to weigh admission.
A panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a June 2023 Supreme Court ruling striking down race-conscious college admissions policies did not doom Boston’s temporary policy.
Alito called the lower court ruling “a glaring constitutional error that threatens to perpetuate race-based affirmative action in defiance of” the high court’s decision last year.
Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote that it’s clear to him that race was “front and center” when the committee adopted new policy.
Supreme Court rejects appeal challenging Hawaii gun licensing requirements under Second Amendment
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s gun-licensing law on Monday, though three justices expressed a willingness to hear arguments over the issue later.
The majority did not explain their reasoning in a brief order declining to take the case. But Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote that he would vote to hear a case to “reaffirm that the Second Amendment warrants the same respect as any other constitutional right.”
In a separate statement, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the court could later revisit the case of Christopher L. Wilson, who argues his Second Amendment rights were violated when he was charged with carrying a gun without a license.
The statements come as many conservative-leaning states drop requirements for people to get licenses to carry guns in public.
Wilson was charged in Hawaii, whose licensing laws at the time were among the country’s strictest. Prosecutors say he was found hiking on private property at night with a handgun tucked into his waistband in 2017.
Wilson fought the charges, citing the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision that expanded gun rights and led to upheaval in the nation’s firearms law landscape. A state court judge agreed and threw out the case.
But Hawaii’s highest court revived the case in a blistering opinion, calling the 2022 Supreme Court decision “fuzzy” and “backward looking” over its requirement for modern gun laws to be rooted in the country’s historical regulations.
Wilson appealed to the nation’s highest court. He asked the justices to toss out the Hawaii Supreme Court decision, arguing those justices flouted the high court’s opinions in favor of state handgun licensing rules that were, he said, too strict at the time.
Prosecutors argued that the case came under state law, so the Hawaii Supreme Court had jurisdiction. They also pointed to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence to the U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights. Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Kavanaugh wrote that the opinion didn’t prevent states from having licensing requirements.
Hawaii has since changed its gun licensing system to remove an approval requirement for firearm licenses.
