19 Winter 2026 damages, to hit terrorists “where it hurts them the most: at their lifeline, their funds.”9 And as a federal court explained, the Terrorism Exception to the FSIA explicitly includes punitive damages, which “serve to punish and deter” providing material support for terrorist acts, which are “among the most heinous the Court can fathom.”10 Moreover, Congress broadened the ATA – or at least attempted to – in 2016 to ensure it reached all those who assist terrorists. The Seventh Circuit had held in 2008 that the ATA’s “statutory silence on the subject of secondary liability means there is none.”11 While that decision explained that the ATA’s civil cause of action still had “the character of secondary liability” and “expressly imposed liability on a class of aiders and abettors,”12 the decision threatened to limit the ATA’s reach. Eventually, Congress responded with the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”),13 which, among other things, explicitly added civil aiding and abetting and conspiracy liability to the ATA. JASTA’s text makes clear that Congress intended to ensure that the ATA’s scope reached all persons who knowingly and substantially assist terrorists targeting Americans: The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.14 Despite this language, however, many courts took alarmingly restrictive views of JASTA. The Supreme Court finally weighed in seven years later, holding that while JASTA requires “conscious and culpable conduct,” it does not require direct or intentional support to acts of terrorism: “people who aid and abet a tort can be held liable for other torts that were ‘a foreseeable risk’ of the intended tort.”15 Since October 7, 2023, U.S. law firms have filed over a dozen ATA and FSIA suits against Hamas’s alleged supporters. A number of these include FSIA suits against Iran, Hamas’s primary state sponsor, and Syria. (Other state actors like Qatar are not U.S.-designated “state sponsors of terrorism” and therefore cannot be sued under the FSIA’s Terrorism Exception.) Iran generally does not appear in these cases to defend itself, so obtaining a judgment is relatively straightforward. Enforcing a judgment, however, is another story. With no assets in the United States, judgment holders must generally rely on a Congressionally established victims’ fund,16 which pays only a small percentage of compensatory damages and entirely excludes punitive damages. As for the ATA suits, several focus on the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, including Balva, described above.17 Other suits target UNRWA, the UN agency accused of essentially working as a Hamas front in the Palestinian territories;18 the Associated Press, which allegedly employed Hamas “reporters” who participated in the October 7 attacks;19 and allegedly terror-linked American Palestinian “advocacy” organizations like American Muslims for Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Jewish Voice for Peace. These cases, if they survive initial motions to dismiss them, will likely remain pending for years due to the often glacial pace of federal dockets. 9. 136 Cong. Rec. S14279-01 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1990); 137 Cong. Rec. S4511-04 (daily ed. Apr. 16, 1991) (statement of Sen. Grassley). 10. Murphy v. Islamic Rep. of Iran, 740 F. Supp. 2d 51, 80 (D.D.C. 2010). 11. Supra note 6, at 689. 12. Id. (emphasis added). 13. Pub. L. 114-222, 130 Stat. 852 (2016). 14. JASTA § 2(b) (emphasis added). 15. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 496 (2023). 16. Specifically, the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, 34 U.S.C. § 20144. 17. The recently-filed Balva is not discussed herein, but for more see Stacey Cowley, “Hamas Victims’ Families Sue Binance, Accusing It of Aiding Terrorism,” N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 25, 2025), available at https://www.nytimes. com/2025/11/25/business/binance-hamas-terrorism.html; and Andrew Bernard, “Oct. 7 victims sue Binance for funding Hamas, other terror groups,” JEWISH NEWS SYND. (Nov. 25, 2025), available at https://www.jns.org/oct7-victims-sue-binance-for-funding-hamas-other-terrorgroups/ 18. Lavi v. UNRWA USA Nat’t Comm. Inc., No. 24-cv00312 (D. Del. Mar. 8, 2024). 19. Newman v. The Associated Press, No. 24-cv-20684 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2024).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=