U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 113B— TERRORISM

18 U.S.C. § 2334

Jurisdiction and venue

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)General Venue.—Any civil action under section 2333 of this title against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district where any plaintiff resides or where any defendant resides or is served, or has an agent. Process in such a civil action may be served in any district where the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent.(b)Special Maritime or Territorial Jurisdiction.—If the actions giving rise to the claim occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in section 7 of this title, then any civil action under section 2333 of this title against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which any plaintiff resides or the defendant resides, is served, or has an agent.(c)Service on Witnesses.—A witness in a civil action brought under section 2333 of this title may be served in any other district where the defendant resides, is found, or has an agent.(d)Convenience of the Forum.—The district court shall not dismiss any action brought under section 2333 of this title on the grounds of the inconvenience or inappropriateness of the forum chosen, unless—(1) the action may be maintained in a foreign court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over all the defendants;(2) that foreign court is significantly more convenient and appropriate; and(3) that foreign court offers a remedy which is substantially the same as the one available in the courts of the United States.(e)Consent of Certain Parties to Personal Jurisdiction.—(1)In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of any civil action under section 2333 of this title, a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in such civil action if, regardless of the date of the occurrence of the act of international terrorism upon which such civil action was filed, the defendant—(A) after the date that is 120 days after the date of the enactment of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019, makes any payment, directly or indirectly—(i) to any payee designated by any individual who, after being fairly tried or pleading guilty, has been imprisoned for committing any act of terrorism that injured or killed a national of the United States, if such payment is made by reason of such imprisonment; or(ii) to any family member of any individual, following such individual’s death while committing an act of terrorism that injured or killed a national of the United States, if such payment is made by reason of the death of such individual; or(B) after 15 days after the date of enactment of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019—(i) continues to maintain any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments in the United States;(ii) establishes or procures any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments in the United States; or(iii) conducts any activity while physically present in the United States on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority.(2)Applicability.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any defendant who ceases to engage in the conduct described in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) for 5 consecutive calendar years. Except with respect to payments described in paragraph (1)(A), no court may consider the receipt of any assistance by a nongovernmental organization, whether direct or indirect, as a basis for consent to jurisdiction by a defendant.(3)Exception for certain activities and locations.—In determining whether a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction under paragraph (1)(B), no court may consider—(A) any office, headquarters, premises, or other facility or establishment used exclusively for the purpose of conducting official business of the United Nations;(B) any activity undertaken exclusively for the purpose of conducting official business of the United Nations;(C) any activity involving officials of the United States that the Secretary of State determines is in the national interest of the United States if the Secretary reports to the appropriate congressional committees annually on the use of the authority under this subparagraph;(D) any activity undertaken exclusively for the purpose of meetings with officials of the United States or other foreign governments, or participation in training and related activities funded or arranged by the United States Government;(E) any activity related to legal representation—(i) for matters related to activities described in this paragraph;(ii) for the purpose of adjudicating or resolving claims filed in courts of the United States; or(iii) to comply with this subsection; or(F) any personal or official activities conducted ancillary to activities listed under this paragraph.(4)Rule of construction.—Notwithstanding any other law (including any treaty), any office, headquarters, premises, or other facility or establishment within the territory of the United States that is not specifically exempted by paragraph (3)(A) shall be considered to be in the United States for purposes of paragraph (1)(B).(5)Defined term.—In this subsection, the term “defendant” means—(A) the Palestinian Authority;(B) the Palestine Liberation Organization;(C) any organization or other entity that is a successor to or affiliated with the Palestinian Authority or the Palestine Liberation Organization; or(D) any organization or other entity that—(i) is identified in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C); and(ii) self identifies as, holds itself out to be, or carries out conduct in the name of, the “State of Palestine” or “Palestine” in connection with official business of the United Nations.(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, § 1003(a)(4), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4522; amended Pub. L. 115–253, § 4(a), Oct. 3, 2018, 132 Stat. 3184; Pub. L. 116–94, div. J, title IX, § 903(c)(1), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 3083.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The date of the enactment of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019, referred to in subsec. (e)(1)(A), (B), is the date of enactment of section 903 of div. J of Pub. L. 116–94, which was approved Dec. 20, 2019.

Amendments

2019—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 116–94, § 903(c)(1)(A), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of any civil action under section 2333 of this title, a defendant shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in such civil action if, regardless of the date of the occurrence of the act of international terrorism upon which such civil action was filed, the defendant—

“(A) after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, accepts—

“(i) any form of assistance, however provided, under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.);

“(ii) any form of assistance, however provided, under section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291) for international narcotics control and law enforcement; or

“(iii) any form of assistance, however provided, under chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2349bb et seq.); or

“(B) in the case of a defendant benefiting from a waiver or suspension of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (22 U.S.C. 5202) after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment of this subsection—

“(i) continues to maintain any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States; or

“(ii) establishes or procures any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 116–94, § 903(c)(1)(B), inserted at end “Except with respect to payments described in paragraph (1)(A), no court may consider the receipt of any assistance by a nongovernmental organization, whether direct or indirect, as a basis for consent to jurisdiction by a defendant.”

Subsec. (e)(3) to (5). Pub. L. 116–94, § 903(c)(1)(C), added pars. (3) to (5).

2018—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 115–253 added subsec. (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2019 Amendment; Abrogation; Construction; Severability

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–94 applicable to any case pending on or after Aug. 30, 2016, with additional rules of construction and abrogation and severability provisions, see section 903(c)(2) and (d) of Pub. L. 116–94, set out in a note under section 2333 of this title.

Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–253, § 4(b), Oct. 3, 2018, 132 Stat. 3185, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 3, 2018].”

Effective Date

Section applicable to any pending case or any cause of action arising on or after 4 years before Oct. 29, 1992, see section 1003(c) of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 2331 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org., 82 F.4th 74 (2d Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org., 82 F.4th 74 (2d Cir. 2023). · cites it 10× “Section 903(c) of the PSJVTA superseded the relevant portions of the ATCA, resulting in various amendments to the personal jurisdiction provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2334 (e). 3 133 Stat. at 3083–85.”
Goldberg v. UBS AG, 660 F. Supp. 2d 410 (E.D.N.Y 2009). · cites it 9× “§ mm The parties agree that forum non conveniens analysis is governed by the ATA, which includes explicit provisions concerning that subject in 18 U.S.C. § 2334 (d). However, the parties disagree regarding the extent to which the language of 18 U.”
Wultz v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 762 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 9× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2334 (a) (emphasis added). Because the ATA permits nationwide service of process, plaintiffs argued that they need only show that defendant has minimum contacts with the United States as a whole, rather than with the D.”
Estates of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Auth., 153 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.R.I. 2001). · cites it 8× “As to defendants PA and PLO, plaintiffs argue that this Court has personal jurisdiction through nationwide service of process pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2334 (a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(l)(D), or, in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure…”
Shabtai Shatsky v. Palestine Liberation Org., 955 F.3d 1016 (D.C. Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “18 U.S.C. § 2334 (e)(1) (2018) (citing 22 U.”
Est. of Ungar Ex Rel. Strachman v. Palestinian Auth., 304 F. Supp. 2d 232 (D.R.I. 2004). · cites it 6× “As to defendant Hamas, plaintiffs contend that this court has personal jurisdiction through domestic service of process pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2334 (a), see id. at 2-10 , and Fed.”
Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003). · cites it 3× “” 18 U.S.C. § 2334 . Construing the ATSSSA’s exclusive jurisdiction language to encompass claims against the September 11 terrorists and their conspirators would bring the ATSS-SA irreconcilably into conflict with the ATA.”
Leibovitch v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 188 F. Supp. 3d 734 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 3× “9 18 U.S.C. § 2334 (a). But Plaintiffs are not proceeding with a substantive claim against the banks under the ATA; instead, this is a post-judgment proceeding against non-parties under Rule 69.”
Estates of Ungar & Ungar v. Palestinian Auth., 325 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.R.I. 2004). · cites it 4× “After reviewing these filings, the court finds that they are sufficient to establish by at least a preponderance of the evidence that the Palestinian Defendants have minimum contacts with the United States as a whole and that the PA and PLO were served with process pursuant to…”
Cohen v. Facebook, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 140 (E.D.N.Y 2017). · cites it 2× “” 6 18 U.S.C. § 2334 (a). Various opinions, including two recent decisions from this district, have held that this provision authorizes nationwide service of process and so provides personal jurisdiction over defendants who are properly served anywhere in the United States.”
Wultz v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, 755 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant ... when authorized by a federal statute.”
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org., 606 U.S. 1 (2025). · cites it 2× “18 U. S. C. §§2334 (e)(1), (5). Pp. 14–19.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 2334(e)(1) — 1 case
Phyllis King, on behalf of herself & others similarly situated v. Bon Charge, an Australian Co. (D. Del. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.