Beyond “Minimum Contacts” – The Fifth Amendment, Foreign Affairs, and the New Constitutional Standard for Federal Personal-Jurisdiction

1. Introduction

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, Nos. 24-20 & 24-151, decided 20 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court confronted a question it had repeatedly reserved but never answered: Do the same “minimum contacts” limits that the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on state courts likewise constrain federal courts under the Fifth Amendment? The answer—rendered in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts—is “No.” Instead, the Court adopted a more elastic due-process test for federal tribunals, one that respects the broader sovereign and foreign-affairs powers of the National Government.

The immediate controversy arose from two Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”) suits brought by American victims of attacks in Israel: Sokolow (filed 2004) and Fuld (filed 2020). After earlier judgments were vacated for lack of personal jurisdiction, Congress enacted the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (“PSJVTA”), explicitly deeming the Palestine Liberation Organization (“PLO”) and Palestinian Authority (“PA”) to have consented to jurisdiction in ATA actions if they (i) continued “martyr payments” to imprisoned or deceased terrorists or (ii) maintained certain operations on U.S. soil. The Second Circuit nevertheless held that the statute offended due process. The Supreme Court has now reversed, upholding the PSJVTA and, in the process, establishing a new constitutional framework for federal personal-jurisdiction.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Constitutional Holding: The PSJVTA’s jurisdictional provisions do not violate the Fifth Amendment. The Clause does not incorporate the Fourteenth Amendment’s “minimum contacts” doctrine; federal courts may therefore exercise jurisdiction where Congress reasonably ties it to conduct implicating the United States and foreign-policy interests.
• Statutory Application: Both deemed-consent predicates—terrorist salary payments and U.S.-based activities—supply a constitutionally sufficient nexus. The Court declined to rely on a separate “consent” analysis because the nexus itself sufficed.
• Reasonableness: Even if a fairness inquiry akin to Asahi is required, jurisdiction is reasonable: the United States has a compelling interest in providing a forum for its citizens victimized by terrorism, plaintiffs need a viable remedy, and the sophisticated defendants face no undue burden litigating here.
• Disposition: Second-Circuit judgments vacated; cases remanded for further proceedings on the merits.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

a. Fourteenth-Amendment Canon (State-court Limits)

The Court canvassed familiar landmarks—International Shoe, World-Wide Volkswagen, Ford Motor, Bristol-Myers Squibb—to underscore that those decisions rest on twin pillars: (1) fairness to defendants and (2) interstate federalism, i.e., preventing one state from overreaching into another’s sovereignty. That second pillar has no analogue at the national level, where the United States is a single sovereign with nationwide and even extraterritorial reach.

b. Early Federal Cases & Foreign-Affairs Jurisprudence

• Burnet v. Brooks (1933) and Cook v. Tait (1924) – Recognized Congress’s authority to tax citizens abroad, illustrating broader federal reach.
• Gamble v. United States (2019) – Noted federal interest in punishing violence against Americans overseas.
• American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003) & Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) – Confirmed that foreign-policy-laden statutes deserve judicial respect but remain judicially reviewable.
• Historical service-of-process cases (Toland, Picquet) – Showed Congress may expressly extend jurisdiction extraterritorially.

c. Consent-to-Jurisdiction Line

Although cases such as Mallory v. Norfolk Southern (2023) examine implied or statutory consent, the Court sidestepped that doctrine here, finding an independent constitutional nexus and leaving the consent question for another day.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning, Step-by-Step

1. Textual Parity, Contextual Difference. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain identical language, but they were adopted at different times to address different structural concerns. The Fourteenth speaks to state power within a federal system; the Fifth governs a sovereign power acting both nationally and abroad.
2. Interstate Federalism Dropped. Because interstate federalism is irrelevant when the national sovereign acts, transporting the minimum-contacts test wholesale would be illogical.
3. Flexible Fifth-Amendment Standard. The proper test is whether Congress has tied jurisdiction to conduct that (a) bears a “meaningful relationship” to the United States and (b) falls within the foreign-affairs prerogatives of the political branches. When those criteria are met, due process is satisfied.
4. Application to PSJVTA. The statute is narrowly targeted, limited to two named foreign entities, and tethered to conduct—terror-reward payments and U.S. activities—directly relevant to U.S. national security and foreign policy. Hence, jurisdiction is constitutional.
5. Reasonableness Backup. Even under a traditional “fair play and substantial justice” lens, the burden on defendants is slight compared to the United States’ and plaintiffs’ paramount interests.

3.3 Impact and Future Ramifications

• New Constitutional Test. Federal courts now operate under a distinct Fifth-Amendment framework: they need not demand minimum contacts but must ensure some substantive U.S. nexus reasonably linked to congressional foreign-policy judgments.
• Anti-Terrorism Litigation Boost. ATA plaintiffs will have an easier time establishing jurisdiction over foreign organizations tied to U.S. interests, increasing both deterrence and potential damages recoveries.
• Statutory Drafting Signals. Congress may replicate the PSJVTA model—enumerating specific entities or behaviors—to create constitutionally sound jurisdictional hooks in other contexts (e.g., cyber-attacks, fentanyl trafficking, overseas corruption).
• Foreign Relations Calculus. While the decision empowers Congress, it also places diplomatic responsibility squarely on the political branches. Other nations may reciprocate, so future statutes will likely balance legal access for U.S. victims against diplomatic costs.
• State-Court Boundary Intact. The ruling does not alter minimum-contacts jurisprudence for state courts; it bifurcates the analysis: Fourteenth Amendment for states, Fifth Amendment for federal tribunals exercising federal statutory jurisdiction.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Jurisdiction

Authority of a court to require a defendant to appear and defend a lawsuit. Without it, any judgment is void.

Minimum Contacts Doctrine

A rule from International Shoe requiring that state-court defendants have sufficient ties to the forum state so litigation is fair and respects state sovereignty.

Interstate Federalism vs. National Sovereignty

“Interstate federalism” ensures co-equal states do not intrude on one another; it is irrelevant when the single national sovereign acts. Hence the distinction between the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments.

Deemed Consent

A legislative mechanism declaring that engaging in specified conduct constitutes advance agreement to jurisdiction—similar to registering to do business in a state.

PSJVTA Predicates

• Payments Prong – Continuing financial rewards to imprisoned or deceased terrorists.
• Activities Prong – Operating or establishing facilities (other than the U.N. mission) or conducting activities while physically present in the United States.

Reasonableness Factors (Asahi)

Consider burden on defendant, interests of forum, and plaintiffs’ interest in relief. Though developed for state courts, the Supreme Court imported them as a fallback fairness check.

5. Conclusion

Fuld v. PLO is a watershed personal-jurisdiction decision. By declaring that the Fifth Amendment is not cabined by “minimum contacts,” the Court re-aligns constitutional doctrine with federal sovereignty and foreign-affairs realities. Congress can, within broad limits, open American courts to hear suits tied to national interests—even when defendants’ conduct occurs largely overseas—so long as the statutory nexus is genuine and reasoned. The ruling simultaneously vindicates the PSJVTA’s goal of affording American terror victims their day in court and clarifies a once-murky area of constitutional law.

Going forward, litigants, lawmakers, and lower courts must scrutinize the nature of the federal nexus rather than tally contacts in the traditional sense. The decision thus marks both an expansion of judicial reach and a renewed insistence that questions of foreign affairs remain, first and foremost, the province of the political branches.