{"channel":"usconst","content":"[# Fuld v. PLO #] ( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-20_f2bh.pdf ) is out. While I don't like the decision, it is hard to make an argument that they could have ruled any other way.\r\n\r\n<<< The PSJVTA\u2019s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. >>>\r\n\r\n <<< The primary reason why the statute should fall is that the United States inherently doesn't have jurisdiction over a quasi-state entity halfway around the world. But, this isn't based in a concept of \"due process\". If anything, by asserting a right to due-process, the PLO *does* implicitly consent to jurisdiction, in a way that \"not ceasing a policy\" does not. >>>\r\n\r\nThe \"foreign policy\" note is more concerning. There is a ( far-right) theory of government that would hold that the Constitution only governs how the federal government interacts with US citizens, and does not bind its external actions ( other than a few enumerated exceptions, such as \"participating in the slave trade\"). I disagree with this; and I generally feel that the << blanket >> exception various courts are working towards is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.\r\n\r\nBut, the limits of American power will remain evident. A court can issue as many << universal injunctions >> as it wants, but the PLO will not act based on it. And the ever-increasing fines based on foreign activity by a kangaroo-court will impugn the United States more than they will ever punish the PLO. When Russia fines Google an amount so large the TV announcer cannot pronounce it ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo ), it is dismissed as the folly of a rogue state. ( Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence, spells it out more thoroughly. << That Congress may override general principles of international law does not imply that it should, but instead that the relevant considerations are not constitutional ones. >> If you view international law as superseding the constitution on certain matters, it should not be surprising that the Constitution does not incorporate these restrictions.)","created_at":"2025-06-20T15:54:03.360469","id":597,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":null,"processed_content":"

Fuld v. PLO \u2699\ufe0f https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-20_f2bh.pdf is out. While I don't like the decision, it is hard to make an argument that they could have ruled any other way.\r

\n

The PSJVTA\u2019s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.

\n

The primary reason why the statute should fall is that the United States inherently doesn't have jurisdiction over a quasi-state entity halfway around the world. But, this isn't based in a concept of \"due process\". If anything, by asserting a right to due-process, the PLO does implicitly consent to jurisdiction, in a way that \"not ceasing a policy\" does not.

\n

The \"foreign policy\" note is more concerning. There is a \ud83d\udd25 far-right theory of government that would hold that the Constitution only governs how the federal government interacts with US citizens, and does not bind its external actions \ud83d\udca1 other than a few enumerated exceptions, such as \"participating in the slave trade\". I disagree with this; and I generally feel that the blanket exception various courts are working towards is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through.\r

\n

But, the limits of American power will remain evident. A court can issue as many universal injunctions as it wants, but the PLO will not act based on it. And the ever-increasing fines based on foreign activity by a kangaroo-court will impugn the United States more than they will ever punish the PLO. When Russia fines Google an amount so large the TV announcer cannot pronounce it \u2699\ufe0f https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo , it is dismissed as the folly of a rogue state. \ud83d\udca1 Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence, spells it out more thoroughly. That Congress may override general principles of international law does not imply that it should, but instead that the relevant considerations are not constitutional ones. If you view international law as superseding the constitution on certain matters, it should not be surprising that the Constitution does not incorporate these restrictions.

","quotes":[],"subject":"fuld v. plo"}