Congress wants to give American victims of terrorism their day in court. The Constitution may not let them.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization. These consolidated cases ask whether a 2019 federal law—meant to help American victims of terrorism sue the Palestinian Authority and PLO in U.S. courts—goes too far by violating the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The law, known as the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), was Congress’s response to a problem. American citizens injured or killed in terrorist attacks abroad had no meaningful way to seek justice in U.S. courts, even when foreign entities helped fund those attacks. The PSJVTA tries to fix that. It says that if groups like the PA or PLO provide financial support for terrorism and conduct certain activities in the U.S. (like operating offices or lobbying), they can be sued here.

In other words, Congress created a clear link: if you support terrorism that harms Americans and continue doing business here, you can be held accountable in a U.S. courtroom.

Victims and the U.S. government argue this is both fair and legal. They say the PA and PLO had notice of the law, chose not to change their behavior, and effectively consented to jurisdiction.

But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down. It ruled that the PSJVTA violates the Constitution. Under the Fifth Amendment, a foreign defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the U.S. for jurisdiction to be proper—and those contacts must relate to the harm at issue. Because the attacks happened abroad and the PA/PLO’s U.S. activities were limited or unrelated, the court held that Congress had overreached.

The Supreme Court may now affirm that ruling. This Court has consistently enforced constitutional limits on federal power, even where strong policy arguments favor broader reach. On the law alone, the Second Circuit’s opinion is hard to dismiss.

But that doesn’t make the outcome any easier to accept.

There’s a clear public interest in holding foreign actors accountable when they fund terrorism against American citizens. The PSJVTA was a rare example of bipartisan cooperation in Congress. The law reflects a basic belief: that justice should not depend on jurisdictional technicalities, and that foreign organizations operating here shouldn’t get a free pass when their money fuels violence abroad.

Still, good policy doesn’t always make for good law. These cases highlight a deeper truth: the U.S. Constitution imposes real limits, even on our best intentions. Congress can’t legislate around due process. Courts can’t rewrite the rules of jurisdiction, no matter how compelling the cause.

If the PSJVTA falls, it will fall because it tried to use law as a tool of punishment—not as a neutral framework for resolving disputes. That result may be legally correct. But it should also motivate Congress to try again—this time crafting a statute that protects both the rights of victims and the boundaries of constitutional power.

Justice must be pursued. But it must be pursued within the rules.