Latest in Anti-Terrorism Act
During oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, the Supreme Court appeared to genuinely grapple with complex questions about the responsibility of social media platforms for their users’ posts.
On Feb. 21 and 22, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter Inc., v. Taamneh, a set of companion cases dealing with the liability of platforms for terrorist material hosted on their services.
Last month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases exploring the interaction between anti-terrorism laws and Section 230. It remains to be seen whether the legislature or the Supreme Court will address Section 230 first, but this may be the prologue to a watershed moment for the internet and its users.
The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in the case involving the Anti-Terrorism Act.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit over whether medical supply and manufacturing companies can be held liable under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act for deliveries of drugs and medical supplies in Iraq.
President Donald Trump quietly signed the bipartisan Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 (ATCA) into law on Oct. 3. Described as a “carefully balanced approach to better ensure victims’ access to compensation and hold supporters of terrorism accountable” by its principal author, Sen.
Earlier this month, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Linde v. Arab Bank vacating a $100 million judgment against Arab Bank, following a jury verdict that found the bank liable under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA)’s civil liability provision, 18 U.S.C. §2333.
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.
On Jan. 31, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Fields v. Twitter. The decision protects the social media company from liability in connection with an attack in Jordan for which ISIS claimed responsibility.
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. The Clarifying Amendment to Provide Terrorism Victims Equity Act—the CAPTIVE Act for short—was passed in the House on July 12.