Latest in Anti-Terrorism Act
An overlooked new law on terrorism-related civil liability could have major implications for U.S. foreign assistance policy—even if it can’t withstand constitutional scrutiny.
All you need to know about the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that vacated a $100 million judgment against Arab Bank.
On February 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a decision in Linde v. Arab Bank. The appellate court vacated and remanded the district court's ruling that Arab Bank could be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for injuries acquired through terrorist attacks in Israel conducted by Hamas, given the bank's provision of financial services to the organization.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the Anti-Terrorism Act suit against Twitter, this time without the help of the CDA.
As the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act enjoys the lion’s share of attention, another bill aimed at facilitating compensation for American victims of terrorist attacks seems to be sailing below the radar.
A few months ago, we wrote a lengthy piece about the possibility that Apple could face civil liability for providing end-to-end encryption to criminals and terrorists. Now Twitter's facing a suit based on the very legal theory we outlined.
U.S. officials have urged a federal judge weigh the “public interest” when deciding whether to require the Palestinian Authority (PA) to post a bond to satisfy a judgment against it for supporting terrorism.
Could Apple be held liable for its end-to-end encryption offerings under a reading of the material support for terrorism laws? The answer may surprise you. But the result may not be what Jim Comey wants from the tech companies.