Supreme Court leaves $656 million judgment against Palestinian authorities in place

Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined on August 3, 2026, to halt enforcement of an approximately $656 million judgment against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, according to the Associated Press. The action leaves the requested pause unavailable while the broader litigation continues.

The emergency request arose from a lawsuit brought by Americans killed or wounded in attacks in Israel. The plaintiffs sued under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act, which permits civil damages claims by U.S. nationals injured or killed by international terrorism. The judgment was entered against the Palestinian entities after years of litigation.

What changed

The Palestinian Authority and the PLO asked the Supreme Court to temporarily stop enforcement of the judgment while they pursued appellate review. Sotomayor, who handled the emergency application, denied that request.

That means the requested barrier to enforcement is not currently in place. Enforcement efforts may continue in the lower courts, although the denial does not by itself establish that any money has been collected or paid.

What the action does not mean

Sotomayor’s action was an emergency ruling on a request for temporary relief, not a final decision resolving every remaining issue in the case. The accessible Supreme Court docket identifies the application as linked to Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, but the August 3 action was not a merits ruling by the full Court.

That distinction matters. An emergency application asks a justice or the Court to alter the status quo while litigation proceeds. Denying a stay generally means the requested temporary protection was not granted; it does not necessarily decide whether the underlying appeal will ultimately succeed.

The action also does not confirm immediate payment to the victims’ families or show that the judgment has been fully enforced. Those questions will depend on subsequent appellate and enforcement proceedings.

How the case reached this point

On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization that a personal-jurisdiction provision in the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act did not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The statute specifically addresses jurisdiction over the PLO and Palestinian Authority in Anti-Terrorism Act cases under specified circumstances. The Court held that the provision reasonably tied jurisdiction to conduct involving the United States and important foreign-policy concerns. It reversed the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case; it did not itself award the approximately $656 million in damages.

On March 30, 2026, the Second Circuit recalled its prior mandate and reinstated the underlying damages judgment after the Supreme Court’s decision. The appellate court said the statutory basis for jurisdiction had been satisfied and rejected the argument that the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction.

What to watch next

The next significant developments are likely to come from the continuing appeal and from enforcement proceedings in the lower courts. Further filings could address the scope and timing of enforcement, any remaining challenges to the judgment, and whether the Supreme Court is asked to take additional action.

For the American victims and their families, the immediate effect is that the requested Supreme Court pause was denied. For the Palestinian entities, enforcement efforts can proceed while the larger dispute remains unresolved. The August 3 action changes the short-term procedural posture, but it does not end the case.

Sources

• Associated Press: Supreme Court won’t halt $656M judgment
• U.S. Supreme Court: Fuld docket
• Second Circuit: Waldman v. PLO