The Supreme Court left a multi-hundred-million-dollar judgment in place against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority after Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined a request to put the payout on hold. The order means the judgment can be enforced while the case continues. According to the Associated Press and Fortune, the suit was brought by Americans who were killed or wounded in attacks in Israel. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/694bea0f1557e8c262b569b603c13633))
Lawyers for the PLO and PA told the Court that immediate payment could disrupt public services in the West Bank and asked for a pause while they challenge the ruling that revived the judgment. Sotomayor denied the request, leaving the stay request unresolved as the appeal proceeds, AP and Fortune reported. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/694bea0f1557e8c262b569b603c13633))
The underlying case stems from attacks in Jerusalem in the early 2000s that killed dozens and injured many. Families sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a law that allows victims of international terrorism to seek damages in U.S. courts. Those basics of the case are reflected in filings and in coverage by AP and Fortune. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/694bea0f1557e8c262b569b603c13633))
The legal path has been long and winding. A federal appeals court initially threw out the jury’s verdict years ago, and Congress later amended the law to permit these suits to proceed. The Supreme Court revived related cases in a prior decision, and a federal appeals court subsequently reinstated the judgment. Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the rulings could allow their pursuit of relief to continue. Those steps are laid out in AP’s account and echoed by Fortune. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/694bea0f1557e8c262b569b603c13633))
The order was issued by Justice Sotomayor alone. It follows a prior Supreme Court decision in favor of the families and does not resolve the merits of the PLO and PA’s current appeal; it declines to freeze the award while that process plays out. As AP notes, the defendants are still pursuing their challenge to the reinstated verdict even as enforcement can move ahead. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/694bea0f1557e8c262b569b603c13633))
The PLO and PA argue that paying now could harm ordinary Palestinians by disrupting core services. The families, for their part, view the order as confirmation that their long pursuit of accountability can continue through the courts as Congress intended under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Those positions are reflected in court papers and the reporting by AP and Fortune. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/694bea0f1557e8c262b569b603c13633))
Why it matters
This isn’t a final word on the case, but it is a green light for victims’ families to keep enforcing their judgment while appeals continue. It also illustrates one way the Supreme Court is applying Congress’s terrorism liability rules: the justices revived these suits in a prior decision, and this order continues that trajectory. Beyond the courtroom, the PLO and PA’s warning about service disruptions underscores the real-world stakes tied to big-dollar judgments. For busy readers, the takeaway is simple: accountability efforts could move forward, and the broader fight over how U.S. courts handle terrorism claims is still unfolding.