On Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will re-introduce the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill, if passed, will allow victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue foreign countries that finance terror groups like al-Qaida.

With Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) approval, the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Leahy is chair, will consider JASTA on the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. After that, the bill still has to pass the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives where it faces fiercer opposition.

JASTA aims to expand provisions in the Foreign Sovereignties Immunities Act and the Anti-Terrorism Act, both of which are used to govern how foreign groups are financially liable to American victims of terror attacks. Under current law, the families of 9/11 victims have been unsuccessful in receiving financial compensation within the U.S court system.

Most notably, a 2008 ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals re-affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by victims and their families against Saudi Arabia, four Saudi Princes, a Saudi banker and a Saudi charity.

The Court claimed that the defendants were protected under the FSIA, which granted the defendants in this case “foreign sovereign immunity.” JASTA will prevent groups that fund terrorism to invoke this immunity and ensure that American courts have jurisdiction over cases like this.

“It does open up a jurisdictional door that was closed before,” David Crane, a Syracuse University law professor, said in an email. “I don’t think you will see federal courts dismissing cases if properly pled under the JASTA.”

Other groups that kill Americans in any act of terrorism, like ISIS and Hamas, will also be liable if JASTA is passed, according to a statement released on Sept. 2 by Schumer’s office.

Schumer’s office did not return two phone calls and an email.

Opponents of the bill claim that increasing liability opens companies up to unfair lawsuits. One such opponent is the fruit producer Chiquita. For the past year, Chiquita has been aggressively lobbying against JASTA because the company fears it could be held liable for payments it made to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, which comprises of violent, right-wing militias, according to a June Daily Beast article.

In response, Chiquita released a statement that said they, too, were victims of terrorist groups and were extorted into paying them.

The legal question brought to light is whether companies that sponsor terrorists are responsible for acts of terrorism those groups commit. In many cases, material support to terrorists is a “nebulous and broadly interpreted term,” Crane said, making this bill a possible concern for organizations and businesses.

“Transactions in this internet linked world could directly or indirectly support a possible terrorist state or group that can cause harm, even though the company never intended the result,” Crane said. “It’s a possible problem.”

Published on September 11, 2014 at 12:01 am

Contact Rachel: rsandler@syr.edu