CLOSE

The Supreme Court ruled in a case brought by victims of Middle East terrorism. (Photo: Michael Owens, USAT)

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that an Arab bank cannot be held liable for a decade of terrorist attacks against Israel under an obscure 1789 law, handing a victory to foreign corporations accused of terrorism or human rights violations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by the court's four other conservative justices, said only Congress can make such a decision. The ruling was 5-4.

"Judicial deference requires that any imposition of corporate liability on foreign corporations for violations of international law must be determined in the first instance by the political branches of the government," Kennedy said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and was joined by the court's three other liberal justices. The decision, she said, "absolves corporations from responsibility under the Alien Tort Statute for conscience-shocking behavior."

"Immunizing corporations that violate human rights from liability ... undermines the system of accountability for law-of-nations violations that the First Congress endeavored to impose," she said.

The decision was a blow to some 6,000 foreign victims, including survivors and relatives, of suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel and the Palestinian Territories from 1996 to 2005.

Many of those victims claimed that Jordan-based Arab Bank used a New York branch to help finance terrorists from Hamas and other groups and to funnel martyr's payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Their challenge cited the Alien Tort Statute, passed by the first U.S. Congress nearly 230 years ago, which gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over crimes committed overseas "in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

American victims of 22 Middle East terrorist attacks won a jury verdict in 2014 under a different law not available to foreign citizens. But a federal appeals court threw out that verdict in February, triggering a settlement agreement with some victims instead.

During oral argument in October, some justices questioned whether corporations can be liable at all under the statute. Others wondered whether the terrorist attacks had a sufficient connection to the United States. Still others worried about causing friction with international allies.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the law was passed to avoid "foreign entanglements," not add to them. Justice Samuel Alito said a ruling for the victims could lead to more lawsuits raising foreign policy concerns. Justice Neil Gorsuch said lawmakers in 1789 meant for the statute to be directed only at U.S. defendants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, based in New York, ruled in 2015 that the centuries-old law cannot be used against corporations.

The bank, which operates in nearly 30 countries, contended in court papers that it is not responsible for attacks on "foreign plaintiffs seeking relief against a foreign defendant for injuries caused by foreign actors on foreign soil."

On Tuesday, it issued a statement asserting that "there is no basis to hold corporations liable under international law."

The Justice Department took a compromise position during the litigation, arguing that the case "has been a source of international friction," assistant solicitor general Brian Fletcher said during oral argument.

Yossi Zur, an Israel who lost his 16-year-old son Asaf to a bus bombing that killed 17 people, told USA TODAY last year that financing terrorism "is as bad as pulling the trigger or exploding the bomb.

"Our view is that terror is a long chain of evil," he said. "Financing terrorism is the most important link in the chain, because without money there wouldn't be any terrorism."

More: EU court says it was wrong to end Hamas terror listing

More: In blasting Iran, Trump woos Israel and Saudi Arabia

More: What would it take to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks?

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2FcHBZt</s>(JNS) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that foreign victims of human-rights abuses and terror attacks cannot sue foreign businesses in U.S. courts.

In Jesner v. Arab Bank, a suit by Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism in Judea, Samaria and Gaza from 1995 through 2005 against the Jordan-based Arab bank, U.S. justices voted 5-4 that the victims could not use the Alien Tort Statute to make claims against the bank. The 18th-century Alien Tort Statute states that foreigners may bring lawsuits in American courts for serious violations of international human-rights laws.

The plaintiffs argued that the Arab bank's New York branch knowingly provided millions of dollars to finance suicide bombings and "martyrdom" payments to reward the families of terrorists who succeeded in killing civilians, keeping accounts for known terrorists and accepting donations they knew would be used for terrorist activity in Israel.

The bank denied the allegations and argued that if the court allowed that, such cases would interfere with U.S. foreign policy and diplomacy.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that people or entities sued under the Alien Tort Statute must have a real connection to the United States, but did not decide whether businesses could be sued.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued the dissent, stating that the majority opinion "absolves corporations from responsibility" for "conscience-shocking behavior."</s>Victims of attacks in Israel cannot use an 18th century law to sue the Arab Bank, a multinational financial institution, the US Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a precedent-setting case for other foreign businesses.

The decision rests on a legal provision almost 230 years old.

Plaintiffs accused the Jordan-based bank of facilitating transfers to Hamas, the Islamist movement which controls the Gaza Strip and which Israel and the United States label a terrorist group.

A majority of five conservative judges on the top US court outnumbered four others who dissented.

The Arab Bank was founded in Jerusalem in 1930 when Palestine was under the British Mandate, and now has more than 600 branches worldwide.

It plays a central role in the Palestinian territories where it works with major international development agencies.

The roughly 6,000 foreign claimants in the case included victims of militant attacks in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, primarily during the second Intifada from 2000 to 2005.

They said the Bank contravened international laws by allowing financial transfers aimed at funding the violence to be made to accounts held by Hamas leaders.

The plaintiffs based their action on the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789, which was adopted following an altercation some five years earlier in which a French diplomat was assaulted by a French national in the US.

The statute was largely dormant for nearly 200 years before reemerging onto the legal scene. Various legal actions were begun against foreign dictators and multinational corporations implicated in cases outside US territory.

But the judges on Tuesday, worried over the risk of diplomatic tensions, refused to extend application of the ATS to multinationals with no link to the United States.

"The Court holds that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the ATS," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

He said it is up to Congress to revise the law if it sees fit.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority ruling "absolves corporations from responsibility under the ATS for conscience-shocking behavior" and human rights violations.</s>The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ended one of two major Arab Bank cases, closing off any path for suits in US courts by foreign victims of overseas terrorism against banks with a US footprint.



The ruling said that foreign corporations such as Jordan’s financial juggernaut, Arab Bank, cannot be sued in American courts for allegations that they helped to finance terrorist attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.





In April 2017, the landmark anti-terrorism financing suit, which was presumed dead, was surprisingly resuscitated by the US Supreme Court agreeing to hear the appeal.That preliminary decision by the court led to speculation that if the plaintiffs won, the case could lead to a flood of anti-terrorism financing lawsuits by foreigners (including Israelis) against foreign financial entities (including those banking for Palestinian terrorist groups) that do business in the US.This would have changed the face of international banking and affected US diplomacy in a variety of unpredictable ways.But with Tuesday’s 5-4 vote, the decision left in place a lower court ruling that had previously thrown out the lawsuit brought by some 6,000 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of non-US citizens killed in attacks, filed under the 1789 US law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being terrorist groups’ “paymaster.”Only in recent years have plaintiffs sought to bring such cases under the obscure law.The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist terrorist groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv.The bank said in court papers that the US government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favor of Royal Dutch Shell Plc over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute’s reach, saying claims must sufficiently “touch and concern” the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.But the justices had left the door open to future cases where the financial entity is on US soil and the case represents a US national interest – say, eliminating financial havens for terrorist financing.Then in September 2014, the plaintiffs won in the other major case against Arab Bank. Unlike Tuesday’s case of foreigners, the plaintiffs who sued the Arab Bank in the other case were US citizens. Their win came in the first public trial of a major bank on charges relating to terrorist attacks – specifically those in Israel during the Second Intifada.There were a series of mixed rulings and appeals following the US plaintiffs’ win in the trial court, and eventually Arab Bank signed a reportedly $1 billion confidential settlement.That gave hope to the foreigners suing Arab Bank in the second case connected to Tuesday’s ruling.However, the court indicated that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate that the foreign entity they were suing had a large enough US footprint and had a sufficient role, even if passive, in facilitating terrorism.This closes off the path for Israelis or anyone else harmed by terrorism to go after large financial institutions in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world, which look the other way when their clients are funding terrorism.Reuters contributed to this story.</s>[WASHINGTON] The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision left in place a lower court ruling that had thrown out a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of non-US citizens killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 US law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the "paymaster" to militant groups.

Only in recent years have plaintiffs sought to bring human rights claims under that obscure law.

The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist militant groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.

The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv. The bank said in court papers that the US government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.

In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favor of Royal Dutch Shell Plc over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.

That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute's reach, saying claims must sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.

In a separate case involving US citizens and brought under a different law, a New York jury in 2014 found Arab Bank liable for facilitating two dozen militant attacks in Israel.</s>WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision left in place a lower court ruling that had thrown out a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of non-U.S. citizens killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the "paymaster" to militant groups.

The court ruled along ideological lines, with its five conservatives in the majority and its four liberal justices dissenting.

Only in recent years have plaintiffs sought to bring human rights claims under that obscure law.

The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist militant groups fund attacks and reward families of the perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote Tuesday's opinion, said the "relatively minor connection between the terrorist attacks at issue in this case and the alleged conduct in the United States" illustrates the problems of extending liability to foreign corporations.

Noting that the case has caused significant diplomatic tension with Jordan, a U.S. ally, Kennedy said that the "political branches are in a better position" to extend that liability if they so choose.

In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that barring suits against foreign companies ensures that they "remain immune from liability for human rights abuses, however egregious they may be."

The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv. The bank said in court papers that the U.S. government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.

In a 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favour of Royal Dutch Shell Plc over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.

That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute's reach, saying claims must sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.

In a separate case involving U.S. citizens and brought under a different law, a New York jury in 2014 found Arab Bank liable for facilitating two dozen militant attacks in Israel.

The Supreme Court, in another case involving U.S. litigation concerning an attack overseas, ruled on Feb. 21 that Americans injured in a 1997 suicide bombing in Jerusalem cannot seize ancient Persian artifacts from a Chicago museum to satisfy a US$71.5 million court judgement against Iran. The plaintiffs had accused Iran of complicity in that attack.

The justices on April 2 refused to consider reinstating a US$655.5 million jury award won against the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization by 11 American families over militant attacks in Israel.

In another case, the justices on March 5 declined to take up Iranian government-owned Bank Melli's appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed victims of militant attacks allegedly backed by Iran to seek millions of dollars in compensation from the bank.</s>WASHINGTON (CN) – The Supreme Court closed the book 5-4 Tuesday on terror-support claims against Arab Bank by foreigners whose families were maimed or killed in attacks on Israel.

As noted in the lead opinion from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the original case included about 6,000 foreign nationals and a smaller group of U.S. citizens, but the latter claims have found more success and are not at issue here.

The Second Circuit tossed the claims from the noncitizens meanwhile under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 — the same law that the Supreme Court cited in the 2013 case Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, an unsuccessful attempt by Nigerians attempting to hold the Netherlands-based oil giant for being in league with the torture of activists.

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor shot back in a scorching dissent Tuesday that today’s opinion “absolves corporations from responsibility under the ATS for conscience-shocking behavior.”

“In categorically barring all suits against foreign corporations under the ATS, the Court ensures that foreign corporations—entities capable of wrongdoing under our domestic law—remain immune from liability for human rights abuses, however egregious they may be,” Kagan wrote, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. “Nor does domestic law.”

Kennedy argued meanwhile that holding a corporation liable under civil or criminal law is not a natural extension of the tradition where an international community takes a stand against “the flagrant disregard of basic human rights.”

“This is confirmed by the fact that the charters of respective international criminal tribunals often exclude corporations from their jurisdictional reach,” he wrote. “The Charter for the Nuremberg Tribunal, created by the Allies after World War II, provided that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over natural persons only. Later, a United States Military Tribunal prosecuted 24 executives of the German corporation IG Farben. Among other crimes, Farben’s employees had operated a slave-labor camp at Auschwitz and ‘knowingly and intentionally manufactured and provided’ the poison gas used in the Nazi death chambers. Although the Military Tribunal ‘used the term “Farben” as descriptive of the instrumentality of cohesion in the name of which’ the crimes were committed, the Tribunal noted that ‘corporations act through individuals.’ Farben itself was not held liable.”

Kennedy also pointed to the limited reach of tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. “The international community’s conscious decision to limit the authority of these international tribunals to natural persons counsels against a broad holding that there is a specific, universal, and obligatory norm of corporate liability under currently prevailing international law,” he wrote.

Looking again to Germany, Kennedy quoted the statement from “the Nuremberg proceedings that ‘crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.’”

Arab Bank applauded the court meanwhile for affirming its “belief that there is no basis to hold corporations liable under international law.”

“The bank looks forward to focusing its full attention on its business, its commitment to safe and sound banking and its dedication to the service of its customers across the globe,” the statement continues.

Anton Metlitsky, an O’Melveny appellate partner who was principal author of a brief for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the case, offered insight Tuesday on the ruling.

“When the Alien Tort Statute was rediscovered in 1980, it was seen as a narrow vehicle for suits by foreign-citizen victims of torture against their perpetrators,” Metlitsky said in a statement. “But suits under that statute proliferated dramatically when foreign citizens began suing corporations as alleged accomplices to human rights violations in the late 1990s. Today’s decision is the court’s second effort in the past several years to stem that tide.”

In the lead opinion, Kennedy denied that the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism supports holding Arab Bank liable here.

“The convention neither requires nor authorizes courts, without congressional authorization, to displace those detailed regulatory regimes by allowing common-law actions under the ATS,” he wrote. “And nothing in the convention’s text requires signatories to hold corporations liable in common-law tort actions raising claims under international law.”

Kennedy argued that it is up to Congress, not the judiciary, “to expand the scope of liability under the ATS to include foreign corporations.”

Focusing on questions of diplomacy, Kennedy emphasized that the only connections to the United States that the plaintiffs here can allege are certain transactions in Arab Bank’s New York branch and a brief allegation regarding a charity in Texas.

“At a minimum, the relatively minor connection between the terrorist attacks at issue in this case and the alleged conduct in the United States well illustrates the perils of extending the scope of ATS liability to foreign multinational corporations like Arab Bank,” the ruling states. “For 13 years, this litigation has ‘caused significant diplomatic tensions’ with Jordan, a critical ally in one of the world’s most sensitive regions. ‘Jordan is a key counterterrorism partner, especially in the global campaign to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.’ The United States explains that Arab Bank itself is ‘a constructive partner with the United States in working to prevent terrorist financing.’ Jordan considers the instant litigation to be a ‘grave affront’ to its sovereignty.”

Chief Justice John Roberts joined Kennedy’s opinion in full, as did Justice Clarence Thomas, but Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined only certain parts of the lead opinion.

Of this group, only Roberts did not pen a separate concurring opinion.

Kagan in her dissent meanwhile contrasted today’s holding against the recent precedent from the Supreme Court that has expanded corporate rights, specifically in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and in the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.

“Immunizing corporations that violate human rights from liability under the ATS undermines the system of accountability for law-of-nations violations that the First Congress endeavored to impose,” she wrote. “It allows these entities to take advantage of the significant benefits of the corporate form and enjoy fundamental rights, without having to shoulder attendant fundamental responsibilities.”</s>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision left in place a lower court ruling that had thrown out a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of non-U.S. citizens killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the "paymaster" to militant groups.

Only in recent years have plaintiffs sought to bring human rights claims under that obscure law.</s>WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that an Arab bank cannot be held financially liable for a decade of terrorist attacks against Israel under an obscure 1789 law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 decision, in which the court's conservative justices joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, along with her three liberal colleagues.

The decision was a blow to some 6,000 foreign victims, including survivors and relatives, of suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel and the Palestinian Territories from 1996 to 2005.

Many of those victims claimed that Jordan-based Arab Bank used a New York branch to help finance terrorists from Hamas and other groups and to funnel martyr's payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Their challenge cited the Alien Tort Statute, passed by the first U.S. Congress nearly 230 years ago, which gives U.S. courts jurisdiction over crimes committed overseas "in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

American victims of 22 Middle East terrorist attacks won a jury verdict in 2014 under a different law not available to foreign citizens. That case remains on appeal.

During oral argument in October, some justices questioned whether corporations can be liable at all under the statute. Others wondered whether the terrorist attacks had a sufficient connection to the United States. Still others worried about causing friction with international allies.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the law was passed to avoid "foreign entanglements," not add to them. Justice Samuel Alito said a ruling for the victims could lead to more lawsuits raising foreign policy concerns. Justice Neil Gorsuch said lawmakers in 1789 meant for the statute to be directed only at U.S. defendants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, based in New York, ruled in 2015 that the centuries-old law cannot be used against corporations.

The bank, which operates in nearly 30 countries, contended in court papers that it is not responsible for attacks on "foreign plaintiffs seeking relief against a foreign defendant for injuries caused by foreign actors on foreign soil."

The Justice Department took a compromise position, arguing that the case "has been a source of international friction," assistant solicitor general Brian Fletcher said during oral argument.

Yossi Zur, an Israel who lost his 16-year-old son Asaf to a bus bombing that killed 17 people, told USA TODAY last year that financing terrorism "is as bad as pulling the trigger or exploding the bomb.

"Our view is that terror is a long chain of evil," he said. "Financing terrorism is the most important link in the chain, because without money there wouldn't be any terrorism."

More: EU court says it was wrong to end Hamas terror listing

More: In blasting Iran, Trump woos Israel and Saudi Arabia

More: What would it take to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks?</s>The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that foreign corporations cannot be sued in American courts for human rights abuses overseas, refusing to revive a lawsuit claiming Jordan-based Arab Bank Plc helped finance militant attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The 5-4 decision brought to an end a lawsuit brought by some 6,000 non-U.S. citizen plaintiffs, including survivors and relatives of people killed in attacks, filed under a 1789 U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute that accused Arab Bank of being the "paymaster" to militant groups.

The court ruled along ideological lines, with its five conservatives in the majority and its four liberal justices dissenting.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said the "relatively minor connection between the terrorist attacks at issue in this case and the alleged conduct in the United States" illustrates the problems of extending liability to foreign corporations.

In ruling for the bank, the court for the second time in five years curbed the ability of plaintiffs to sue corporations in U.S. courts under the Alien Tort Statute for human rights violations occurring abroad. Other foreign-based companies to have faced such suits include Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Nestle SA and Daimler AG.

"Arab Bank is pleased with the court's decision, which ends this litigation and affirms the bank's belief that there is no basis to hold corporations liable under international law," the bank said in a statement.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment.

The ruling delivered a blow to human rights lawyers but left open the possibility of U.S. corporations being sued under the Alien Tort Statute in limited circumstances.

Paul Hoffman, who represents plaintiffs in such disputes, said a current case in which Indonesian villagers sued U.S.-based Exxon Mobil Corp for alleged human rights abuses carried out by security forces working for the company should be unaffected by Tuesday's ruling.

Hoffman said Kennedy "went out of his way to avoid a categorical ruling" shielding U.S. corporations.

The plaintiffs accused Arab Bank of deliberately financing terrorism, including suicide bombings and other attacks. They said Arab Bank used its New York branch to transfer money that helped Hamas and other Islamist militant groups fund attacks and reward families of perpetrators between 1995 and 2005.

Noting that the case has caused significant diplomatic tension with Jordan, a U.S. ally, Kennedy said the "political branches are in a better position" to extend that liability if they so choose.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that barring suits against foreign companies ensures they "remain immune from liability for human rights abuses, however egregious they may be."

The lead plaintiff in the Arab Bank case was Joseph Jesner, whose British citizen son was killed at age 19 in a 2002 suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv. The bank said in court papers the U.S. government has called it a constructive partner in the fight against terrorism financing.

In its previous 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court did not resolve the corporate liability question when it ruled in favor of Shell over a lawsuit claiming the company was complicit in a crackdown on protesters in Nigeria.

That 2013 ruling narrowed the Alien Tort Statute's reach, saying claims must sufficiently "touch and concern" the United States to overcome the presumption that the law does not cover foreign conduct.

In a separate case involving U.S. citizens that was brought under a different law, a New York jury in 2014 found Arab Bank liable for facilitating two dozen militant attacks in Israel.

That ruling was overturned on appeal in January.
The United States Supreme Court rejects a case brought by foreign nationals under the Alien Tort Statute attempting to sue the Arab Bank over terror attacks in Israel.