Whether the PLO and PA consented to personal jurisdiction when they chose to maintain facilities within the United States after the date specified in the ATCA

QUESTIONS PRESENTED At issue in this case is the continued viability of Congress’s effort to combat international terrorism through the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992 (ATA). Petitioners, victims of terrorism and their families, won a jury verdict after a seven-week trial against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) under the ATA, which provides a private right of action for “Cajny national of the United States injured * * * by reason of an act of international terrorism.” 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). But the Second Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that the Fifth Amendment bars the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA for committing terror attacks harming U.S. citizens “outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Pet. App. 41a. In response, Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 (ATCA), which provides that defendants “benefiting from a waiver or suspension” of a 1987 statute restricting the activities of the PLO and its affiliates are deemed to consent to personal jurisdiction in ATA actions if they “continue[] to maintain” an office or other facility “within the jurisdiction of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 2334(e). The same Second Circuit panel held that the new law, enacted for the specific purpose of superseding the panel’s initial decision, did not provide jurisdiction over these entities. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the PLO and PA consented to personal jurisdiction when they chose to maintain facilities within the United States after the date specified in the ATCA. 2. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause bars federal courts from exercising jurisdiction authorized by Congress over a defendant whose criminal conduct harms a U.S. citizen outside of the United States. (1)