69 Fall 2026 mmunity in American courts has always been a matter of American law. A series of pending cases now tests whether that principle still holds as applied to the United Nations and an organization it established long ago, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is claiming to be beyond the reach of U.S. jurisdiction. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States Government has filed a statement of interest taking the clear position that UNRWA is not a “subsidiary organ” of the United Nations entitled to immunity from legal process – that the agency is “U.N. in name only.”1 That litigation, filed by our firm, alleges that UNRWA’s schools, personnel, payroll, and facilities were systematically integrated into Hamas’s terror apparatus – both before and at the time of the October 7, 2023 massacre.2 The legal question at hand is whether UNRWA may claim the immunity which the United States granted to the United Nations, but not expressly to its unilaterally established affiliated entities. This raises important legal questions: does the UN General Assembly – a body the United Nations Charter authorized solely to make recommendations – have the unilateral power to confer immunity binding upon U.S. courts? Are all UN created entities unreachable under American law, no matter the depravity and intentionality of their bad acts, without the express consent of and even over the objection of the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches of government, so long as the UN labels them a “subsidiary organ”? Disappointingly, in Estate of Siman Tov v. UNRWA et al.,3 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has recently ruled that the General Assembly does have such power. At the outset of that case, the United States, under the Biden Administration, granted the United Nations’ request that it state to the court that UNRWA enjoyed immunity.4 After the change in administrations, the Government reversed course and explained why UNRWA is not immune from suit.5 Even so, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice, holding that UNRWA is immune and thus the Court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.6 That combination is itself questionable: dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in this Circuit ordinarily must be without prejudice, since a court that lacks jurisdiction lacks the power to reach the merits at all.7 As of August 2026, that decision is pending appeal in the Second Circuit. A third action is pending in the District of Delaware.8 How Immunizing UNRWA Would Let the UN Control U.S. Courts Joseph H. Tipograph 1. Statement of Interest of the United States at 1, 5, 11, 15, Estate of Sha’arabany v. UNRWA, No. 1:25-cv-02490-RCL (D.D.C. April 3, 2026) (hereinafter “U.S. SOI”). 2. Am. Compl., Estate of Sivan Sha’arabany v. UNRWA & UNRWA USA Nat’l Comm., Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02490-RCL (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2025) (hereinafter “Sha’arabany Compl.”). 3. Complaint, Estate of Tamar Kedem Siman Tov v. UNRWA, No. 1:24-cv-04765 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2024). 4. Statement of Interest of the United States, Estate of Siman Tov v. UNRWA, No. 1:24-cv-04765 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2024). 5. Statement of the United States at 1, 3, 6, 9–10, Estate of Siman Tov v. UNRWA, (S.D.N.Y. April 24, 2025). 6. Est. of Siman Tov v. United Nations Relief & Works Agency, 807 F. Supp. 3d 208 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). 7. Green v. Dep't of Educ. of the City of New York, 16 F.4th 1070, 1074 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 54–55 (2d Cir. 2016)) (dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction “must be without prejudice, rather than with prejudice,” because “the district court lacks the power to adjudicate the merits of the case”). 8. That case was initially filed against only UNRWA USA. Compl. at 1, Lavi v. UNRWA USA Nat’l Comm., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00312-RGA (D. Del. March 2024). The court dismissed that original complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Lavi v. UNRWA USA Nat’l Comm., Inc., 2025 WL 2300038 (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2025). Plaintiffs then filed a First Amended Complaint on August 22, 2025, adding UNRWA itself as a defendant. First Am. Compl. at 1, 4–6, Lavi v. UNRWA USA Nat’l Comm., Inc., (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2025) (hereinafter “Lavi FAC”). I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=