Supreme Court of the United States asked to freeze $656 million verdict — Why Palestinian authority warns of West Bank fallout

Palestinian authorities have turned to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to temporarily block a $656 million judgment stemming from deadly attacks in Israel, warning that being forced to pay the massive award now could disrupt essential services in the West Bank and have wider consequences for regional security.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Thursday, asking the justices to put enforcement of the judgment on hold while they pursue another appeal.

The latest move is part of a legal battle that has stretched for more than two decades and involves American victims and families affected by a series of attacks in and around Jerusalem during the early 2000s.


In their filing, the Palestinian organisations argued that immediately enforcing the $656 million judgment could have repercussions extending far beyond the courtroom.

They warned that payment would “destabilize critical government services” provided in the West Bank, harm civilians and potentially “jeopardize regional security”.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether the money can be collected while the Palestinian authorities continue challenging the reinstated verdict.

Why Palestinian authorities face a $656 million judgment

The case was brought by American citizens and families of victims killed or injured in attacks in Israel during the early 2000s.

The attacks killed 33 people and injured hundreds more.

The plaintiffs sued the PLO and Palestinian Authority under the US Anti-Terrorism Act, which gives American victims of certain international terrorist attacks a pathway to seek damages through US courts.

After years of litigation, a federal jury in New York found the Palestinian organisations liable and awarded damages to the plaintiffs.

The final amount reached $655.5 million — generally rounded to $656 million — because provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act allowed damages to be multiplied.

But obtaining the verdict was only the beginning of a legal fight that would move repeatedly through the federal court system.

A verdict that disappeared — then came back

The Palestinian organisations successfully challenged the original judgment.

A federal appeals court in New York threw out the verdict, finding problems with US courts exercising jurisdiction over the defendants.

For years, subsequent decisions continued to favour the PLO and Palestinian Authority, even as Congress amended federal law in an effort to make it easier for terrorism victims to pursue such cases in American courts.

That legal landscape changed significantly after the dispute reached the US Supreme Court.

In 2025, the justices sided with the American families in a decision that revived their lawsuits and cleared the way for the litigation to move forward.

The ruling eventually sent the dispute back to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals.

In March, that court reinstated the $656 million verdict.

Attorneys representing the victims described the decision at the time as a moment of relief after years of litigation, saying it would finally allow justice to proceed.

Why the Palestinian Authority wants payment stopped

The latest Supreme Court filing does not mark the end of the underlying legal dispute.

Instead, the Palestinian Authority and PLO are asking the justices to prevent enforcement of the judgment while they appeal the decision that brought the multimillion-dollar award back into force.

Their argument centres heavily on the financial consequences.

The Palestinian Authority provides government services across parts of the occupied West Bank and has faced longstanding financial difficulties.

According to the emergency filing, extracting hundreds of millions of dollars while further legal challenges remain unresolved could undermine those services.

The organisations contend that the consequences would be felt by ordinary Palestinians who had no involvement in the attacks at the heart of the lawsuit.

They also argue that financial destabilisation could have broader security implications in an already volatile region.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers declined to comment on Thursday’s Supreme Court petition.

More than two decades of courtroom battles

The extraordinary length of the case reflects the complicated questions surrounding the ability of American courts to hear terrorism-related claims involving foreign organisations.

The attacks underlying the lawsuit took place more than 20 years ago.

Families turned to the Anti-Terrorism Act, legislation designed in part to allow Americans harmed by international terrorism to seek financial accountability through US courts.

But questions over jurisdiction repeatedly complicated the case.

Congress subsequently changed federal law in an attempt to provide clearer grounds for American courts to hear certain claims involving the PLO and Palestinian Authority.

Those changes produced further rounds of litigation before the Supreme Court eventually intervened in 2025.

The 2nd Circuit's decision in March to restore the original damages award brought the families closer to collecting the money, but Thursday's emergency filing shows that the courtroom battle is not yet over.

Supreme Court now faces another decision

The immediate question before the Supreme Court is narrower than the broader dispute over liability.

The justices must determine whether enforcement of the $656 million judgment should be temporarily frozen while the Palestinian organisations pursue their latest appeal.

If the court refuses to intervene, efforts to collect the damages could proceed despite warnings from the Palestinian authorities about the potential financial and political consequences.

If the justices grant the request, payment would be delayed while another chapter of the decades-old legal fight plays out.

Either way, the case once again puts the Supreme Court at the centre of a dispute combining terrorism law, the rights of American victims, the finances of the Palestinian Authority and the fragile political situation in the West Bank.

(With AP inputs)