In recent years, a surge of civil litigation under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) has altered the landscape of accountability for international terror.
As more plaintiffs prepare to leverage this powerful legal tool, figures like Nick Oberheiden, an experienced attorney specializing in JASTA litigation, are already guiding victims through the complex terrain of claims and court strategies.
JASTA, enacted in 2016, significantly weakened the sovereign immunity protections of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). For the first time, U.S. citizens could bring civil actions against foreign states and associated institutions that allegedly played a role in supporting or facilitating acts of terrorism against Americans. The legislation has since reshaped not only U.S. law but also the global conversation around accountability, justice, and the limits of diplomatic protection.
The Origins of JASTA
Passed after years of lobbying by 9/11 families, JASTA amended the FSIA and ATA to let victims sue foreign states for supporting terrorism, even if those states weren’t on the U.S. terrorism list. President Obama vetoed the law over concerns of diplomatic fallout, but Congress overrode him, the only override of his presidency, signaling broad bipartisan support for victims’ right to seek justice.
A Legal Turning Point: What Changed
Two changes in particular explain why lawsuits are rising:
- Expanded Jurisdiction: Plaintiffs no longer need the entire tort to occur in the U.S. It is enough that injury or harm was suffered domestically, even if the planning or financing of terrorism occurred abroad.
- Aiding-and-Abetting Liability: JASTA explicitly allows claims against secondary actors who “aid and abet” or “conspire” with terrorists. This provision dramatically widens the field of potential defendants, financial institutions, service providers, charities, and even corporations whose products or platforms are alleged to have facilitated terrorism.
Legal scholars describe this as a profound expansion of civil liability. What was once a narrow avenue for suing designated “rogue states” is now a growing field of litigation that touches global business and diplomacy.
Early Lawsuits and Their Ripple Effects
The earliest high-profile lawsuits under JASTA targeted Saudi Arabia. Families of 9/11 victims alleged that Saudi officials or institutions provided material support to al-Qaeda. While Saudi Arabia has denied such allegations, U.S. courts have allowed parts of these lawsuits to move forward, marking a significant precedent.
Other cases have tested the boundaries of aiding-and-abetting liability. For example, lawsuits have been filed against banks accused of knowingly providing financial services to entities later linked to terrorism. Plaintiffs argue that by ignoring red flags, such institutions indirectly enabled attacks.
More recently, civil suits have expanded to include technology platforms accused of hosting extremist propaganda or facilitating communications used by terror groups. Even cryptocurrency exchanges have faced allegations that their systems allowed terrorist financing to flow unchecked.
Why JASTA Lawsuits Are Expected to Rise
- Judicial Shifts: Courts now allow more aiding-and-abetting claims to proceed, encouraging additional filings.
- Ongoing Terror Threats: Attacks like October 7 have prompted lawsuits not only against militants but also entities accused of indirect support.
- Legislative Backing: Congress continues to refine and strengthen JASTA, ensuring its durability for years ahead.
Diplomatic and Geopolitical Consequences
JASTA is not just a legal tool; it is a diplomatic flashpoint. Allies have expressed concern that it sets a dangerous precedent by exposing foreign states to U.S. lawsuits. Saudi Arabia, in particular, protested vigorously, warning that U.S. businesses and government agencies could face retaliatory lawsuits abroad.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has noted that while JASTA empowers victims, it also risks undermining the principle of sovereign immunity, a bedrock of international law. Weakening that norm could encourage reciprocal measures, exposing U.S. soldiers, diplomats, or corporations to legal action in foreign jurisdictions.
Thus, each lawsuit has both legal and geopolitical consequences. Pursuing justice for victims may also strain bilateral relations, complicating alliances, and triggering retaliatory legislation in other nations.
Business and Institutional Exposure
For global corporations, JASTA represents a new compliance frontier. Banks, social media platforms, and telecommunications companies are scrutinized for whether their services might indirectly facilitate terror financing or propaganda.
Legal experts caution that even indirect or unintentional support can lead to litigation. For example, a bank accused of failing to implement adequate anti-money-laundering safeguards could face claims of aiding terrorism. A tech company that does not act swiftly to remove extremist content could be drawn into litigation as well.
The threat of liability may push corporations to adopt more robust compliance systems, increasing costs but potentially making global commerce more accountable.
Victims’ Perspectives
For survivors and families, JASTA offers something that was long denied: the chance to pursue accountability in a courtroom. Civil suits cannot replace lives lost, but they can yield compensation, symbolic recognition, and a sense of justice.
Victims’ advocacy groups argue that without JASTA, many of these cases would never see the light of day. The law, in their view, levels the playing field, giving individuals the ability to challenge powerful institutions and states in U.S. courts.
Looking Ahead: Key Trends
- More Secondary Actor Lawsuits: Financial, tech, and communication firms will likely face growing claims of indirect support for terrorism.
- Scrutiny of Foreign Assets: Plaintiffs may target the U.S. commercial activities of foreign states to enforce judgments.
- Legislative Refinement: Bipartisan support suggests JASTA will be strengthened rather than rolled back.
- Diplomatic Repercussions: Vulnerable states may respond with reciprocal laws against U.S. actions abroad.
As JASTA evolves, lawsuits are set to increase, with victims and families, represented by attorneys like Nick Oberheiden, pushing new boundaries of accountability in international terrorism cases.