Latest in Anti-Terrorism Act
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.
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. We got a lot of heat for this piece. But today it's looking pretty good.
As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, the U.S. Department of Justice and Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken have filed letters urging a federal judge to weigh the “public interest” when considering a motion that would require the Palestinian Authority (PA) to post a bond to satisfy a judgment against it for supporting terrorism.
In the first part of this series, we looked at the question of whether Apple could be held liable in a negligence tort for refusing to retain the ability to provide law enforcement with decrypted communications in response to legal process.