Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Name	Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
Enacted by	United States Congress
Effective date	July 28, 2016
Introduced in	United States Senate
Public law	Public Law 114–222
Veto status	Overridden by United States Congress
Signed by	Barack Obama

Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is a 2016 United States federal law that created an exception to sovereign immunity for certain foreign states accused of supporting terrorism. It permits civil claims by victims and families relating to the September 11 attacks and other attacks against designated state sponsors of terrorism in United States district courts. The law generated high-profile debate involving presidential veto, Congressional override, and international reactions from countries such as Saudi Arabia.

Background

Legislative interest in enabling private civil remedies against foreign states traces to earlier statutes including the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and litigation arising from the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, the 1998 United States embassy bombings, and the September 11 attacks. Prior cases such as Burnett v. Al Baraka Banking and Investment and Flatow v. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shaped claims invoking state sponsorship and led victims to seek remedies against entities linked to Iran and Sudan. Diplomatic tensions echoed during debates involving the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and bilateral relations with countries designated by the United States Department of State.

Legislative History

The law originated as bipartisan legislation introduced in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives and compiled from proposals by members including Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Charles Schumer, and Lindsey Graham. After passage by both chambers, President Barack Obama issued a veto, citing concerns about reciprocity and risks to United States service members and diplomats. Congress invoked its constitutional override power under Article I and Article II, conducting an override vote patterned after precedents such as the overrides of Veterans' Benefits Expansion Act (example of override usage) and culminating in a successful two-thirds vote in both the Senate of the United States and the United States House of Representatives.

Provisions and Legal Effects

The statute amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 by adding a carve-out allowing civil actions against foreign states designated as state sponsors of terrorism if plaintiffs allege that the state provided material support for an act of international terrorism that caused personal injury or death. It authorizes jurisdiction in United States district courts, permits service of process, and addresses damages remedies, including punitive damages and compensatory damages. The law preserves certain defenses and procedural requirements present in prior case law such as Sampson v. Federal Republic of Germany-era immunities and interacts with executive-branch tools like sanctions administered by the United States Department of the Treasury and listings by the United States Department of State.

Controversies and Debates

Opponents warned of reciprocal litigation risks that could expose United States officials, private entities, or transportation corporations to suits abroad, invoking concerns raised by scholars and practitioners in contexts like sovereign immunity doctrine and the Hague Convention. Proponents emphasized remedies for victims of attacks such as September 11 attacks and cited precedents involving Iran and Libya. International law commentators compared the statute's approach to immunity exceptions found in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and domestic decisions in United Kingdom and Canada. Debates also referenced the potential impact on pending adjudications such as claims against banks alleged to have facilitated illicit finance and on negotiations tied to agreements like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Implementation and Litigation

Following enactment, plaintiffs filed suits invoking the new cause of action in district courts including the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Defendants raised constitutional challenges, foreign sovereign immunity defenses, and motions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Appeals reached federal appellate courts and raised questions likely to implicate the United States Supreme Court regarding statutory construction and separation-of-powers doctrines. Litigation touched on evidentiary issues, jurisdictional discovery, and enforcement of judgments, intersecting with asset-execution disputes involving sovereign property and commercial activity exceptions recognized in cases such as Hellenic Republic v. FDL-style precedents.

International and Diplomatic Implications

The law strained relations with countries named or potentially affected, most prominently with Saudi Arabia, which warned of reciprocal measures and diplomatic consequences. Foreign ministries and international organizations, including delegations to the United Nations General Assembly, cited concerns about undermining customary immunity norms and the potential for politicization. Executive-branch officials engaged in diplomatic consultations with allies such as United Kingdom, France, and Germany to mitigate fallout, while foreign litigants referenced comparable statutes in jurisdictions like Israel and Australia that address terrorism-related claims.

Impact and Criticism on Victims' Litigation

Advocates for victims, including organizations like 9/11 Families United and legal aid groups, argued the statute provided indispensable access to civil redress against alleged state sponsors and enabled discovery into financing networks linked to attacks. Critics pointed to procedural difficulties, sovereign countermeasures, and the practical challenges of enforcing judgments against state assets, referencing enforcement mechanisms used in cases against Iran and Libya following terrorism-designation litigation. Empirical assessment of awards, settlements, and docket activity continues in federal dockets and scholarly analyses in law journals and policy institutes such as Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations, and university centers studying tort law and international litigation.

Category:United States federal legislation