The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) is an important federal law that authorizes lawsuits in the United States for acts of international terrorism committed domestically and abroad. Under JASTA, victims and families can pursue claims against foreign states and other entities (and individuals) in foreign countries that provide direct or indirect support for designated foreign terrorist organizations.

JASTA provides civil litigants in terrorism-related cases with the ability to pursue claims under international law in federal district court. As discussed below, this includes claims based not only on primary liability and providing material support and other forms of substantial assistance to designated terrorist organizations, but claims based on aiding and abetting and other theories of secondary liability as well. Crucially, JASTA allows victims and families to pursue claims related to terrorist activities regardless of whether the United States government acts in response, and it only allows the US government to intervene in victims’ and families’ civil actions in limited circumstances.

“JASTA and its legislative history are complex, but they are also extremely important. Under JASTA, victims and families can pursue civil actions related to terrorist attacks and other acts of international terrorism in US courts despite the sovereign immunity broadly afforded to foreign states—and subject to only limited exceptions involving US government intervention for foreign policy or related reasons.” – Dr. Nick Oberheiden, Founding Attorney of Oberheiden Law Group.

This article provides an introduction to pursuing civil claims related to terrorist attacks and other acts of international terrorism under JASTA. It also introduces pertinent judicial principles established in decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court and certain US courts that have handled these cases. However, these are extremely complex cases; and, to seek civil remedies effectively, victims and families must engage experienced legal counsel who is familiar with JASTA’s legislative history, the various other federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions that are pertinent in these cases, and the proper legal framework for holding foreign states and other foreign parties accountable for the acts of terrorist groups.

5 Key Facts About JASTA Lawsuit Claims Involving Acts of International Terrorism

The United States Congress enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in 2016 in direct response to concerns that existing federal statutes did not provide adequate rights for victims and families to seek accountability for attacks and other heinous acts committed by foreign terrorist organizations. Prior to JASTA, foreign states enjoyed broad sovereign immunity against terrorism-related civil actions; and, even when an exception to sovereign immunity applied, victims and families could only pursue civil claims on limited grounds.

Today, JASTA plays a critical role in allowing United States citizens and other victims and family members to hold foreign states and other foreign organizations accountable for knowingly providing substantial assistance to terrorist organizations and for directly and indirectly facilitating terrorist acts through other means. With this background in mind, here are five key facts about JASTA lawsuit claims involving acts of international terrorism:

1. JASTA Expands the Scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)

Prior to the enactment of JASTA, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) authorized terrorism-lawsuits against foreign organizations in US courts, but they did so under far more limited circumstances. In enacting JASTA, Congress expanded the scope of the ATA and FSIA, allowing victims and families to pursue civil actions against foreign states and other parties under US law and in US courts in a much wider range of cases.

2. JASTA Authorizes Lawsuits Against Foreign States that Support Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Under JASTA, victims and families can pursue lawsuits against foreign states that support foreign terrorist organizations regardless of whether they are designated as state sponsors of terrorism. This is a shift from pre-existing US law under the FSIA. Under JASTA, if any foreign state knowingly provides substantial assistance, recklessly contributes material support, or otherwise facilitates a tortious act that constitutes an act of terrorism under US law or international law, that foreign state can potentially be held accountable.

3. JASTA Imposes Aiding and Abetting Liability and Liability for Co-Conspirators

Another key aspect of JASTA—and another key change from pre-existing US law—is that the statute imposes aiding and abetting liability and conspiracy liability for foreign states that support or contribute to acts of international terrorism as well. Previously, US courts had interpreted the ATA to only authorize claims based on primary liability. However, JASTA expressly authorizes claims based on theories of secondary liability, including claims against foreign states that “aid and abet[] by knowingly providing substantial assistance” and against states that “conspire[d] with the person who committed” a terrorist act.

4. JASTA Eliminates the “Entire Tort” Requirement for International Terrorism Lawsuits Against Foreign States

A third key aspect of JASTA is that it eliminates the “entire tort” requirement for pursuing international terrorism lawsuits against foreign states. Previously, US courts had interpreted the FSIA as requiring plaintiffs to prove that the “entire tort” for which they were seeking relief occurred in the United States. In the case of In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), for example, the court dismissed claims against the Saudi Joint Relief Committee and the Saudi Red Cross Society on the basis that their alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks did not take place on US soil. With JASTA on the books, foreign states and other parties accused of committing acts in support of terrorist activities abroad can now face lawsuits for injuries and deaths occurring in the United States.

5. JASTA Covers Acts of International Terrorism in the United States and Abroad

With the changes to existing US law discussed above, JASTA covers acts of international terrorism in the United States and abroad. If a foreign state or another party is accused of committing or facilitating a terrorist act anywhere in the world, it can face civil liability for such act in US court. Crucially, this is true regardless of whether, and to what extent, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) or United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) takes action, unless an arm of the US government is “engaged in good-faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims” at issue for foreign policy or other related reasons.

Seeking Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism and Other Foreign Government Entities

For victims and families grieving the loss of loved ones due to attacks and other heinous acts committed by terrorist groups, filing a JASTA lawsuit provides an opportunity to seek justice not only from any state sponsors of terrorism that deserve to be held accountable, but from other foreign government entities as well. Currently, only four countries are designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the US government: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. By expanding the FSIA’s sovereign immunity exceptions to all foreign states in terrorism-related cases, JASTA authorizes lawsuits against other countries as well.

Seeking Justice Against Foreign Individuals and Entities Not Under Government Control

Along with pursuing claims against foreign states and other entities under JASTA, victims of terrorist attacks and their families can seek justice against foreign individuals and entities not under government control as well. Here, another federal statute—the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)—comes into play. Under the ATS, US courts have jurisdiction over civil actions involving tortious acts “committed in violation of the law of nations or of a treaty of the United States." Victims and families have used the ATS to pursue claims against foreign banks and various other parties accused of providing access to funding, direct financial support, and other forms of material support to terrorist organizations in recent years.

Why Terrorism-Related Lawsuits Against Social Media Companies Have Failed (So Far)

While JASTA, the ATS, and the other US laws discussed above have facilitated several successful terrorism-related lawsuits in recent years, one class of lawsuits that has generally been unsuccessful is lawsuits targeting social media companies. Typically, these lawsuits have sought to hold social media companies like Meta, Google, and X liable for terrorist attacks based on the theory that their platforms aided and abetted the attacks.

In these cases, social media companies have successfully relied on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to avoid liability. Broadly, Section 230 insulates social media companies and other internet service providers from liability for third-party content posted on their platforms. As the US Supreme Court wrote in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (2023), “the failure to allege that the platforms here do more than transmit information by billions of people—most of whom use the platforms for interactions that once took place via mail, on the phone, or in public areas—is insufficient to state a claim that defendants knowingly gave substantial assistance and thereby aided and abetted [terrorist] acts.” Going forward, it will be interesting to see if plaintiffs have success with allegations that arguably fall outside of the scope of Section 230, such as those in the current social media harm litigation involving claims that social media companies have ignored known risks related to their algorithms and platforms.