U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 61— ANTI-TERRORISM—PLO

22 U.S.C. § 5202

Prohibitions regarding PLO

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be unlawful, if the purpose be to further the interests of the Palestine Liberation Organization or any of its constituent groups, any successor to any of those, or any agents thereof, on or after the effective date of this chapter—(1) to receive anything of value except informational material from the PLO or any of its constituent groups, any successor thereto, or any agents thereof;(2) to expend funds from the PLO or any of its constituent groups, any successor thereto, or any agents thereof; or(3) notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, to establish or maintain an office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction of, or with funds provided by the Palestine Liberation Organization or any of its constituent groups, any successor to any of those, or any agents thereof.(Pub. L. 100–204, title X, § 1003, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1407.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For the effective date of this chapter, referred to in text, as being 90 days after Dec. 22, 1987, see section 1005 of Pub. L. 100–204, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5201 of this title.

Executive DocumentsDelegation of Certain Functions and Authorities

Memorandum of President of the United States, July 21, 2010, 75 F.R. 43795, provided:

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the following functions and authorities:

• The function to make the specified reports to the Congress under 22 U.S.C. 2291–4(c).

• The function and authority to waive the provisions of section 1003 of Public Law 100–204 (22 U.S.C. 5202) upon making certain determinations and certifications under section 7034(b) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111–117) and any subsequently enacted provision of law that is the same or substantially the same.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Barack Obama.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · 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 6× “filed,” a defendant would “be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in such civil action if,” after more than 120 days following the ATCA’s enactment, the defendant (1) “accept[ed]” certain “form[s] of assistance” from the United States, or (2) “maintain[ed]” an…”
United States v. Palestine Liberation Org., 695 F. Supp. 1456 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). · cites it 4× “Second, while the section of the ATA prohibiting the maintenance of an office applies “notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,” 22 U.S.C. § 5202 (3), it does not purport to apply notwithstanding any treaty.”
Shabtai Shatsky v. Palestine Liberation Org., 955 F.3d 1016 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “§ 2334 (e)(1) (2018) (citing 22 U.S.C. § 5202 ). Klieman held that neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO satisfied any of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act’s factual predicates for consent to jurisdiction.”
Est. of Klieman by & Through Kesner v. Palestinian Auth., 923 F.3d 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “The second heading, § (e)(1)(B), refers to a defendant "benefiting from a waiver or suspension of section 1003" of the ATA, 22 U.S.C. § 5202 , and (4) "continu[ing] to maintain"- or (5) "establish[ing] or procur[ing]"- "any office, headquarters, premises, or other facilities or…”
Mendelsohn v. Meese, 695 F. Supp. 1474 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). · cites it 4× “22 U.S.C. § 5202 . There are four plaintiffs who have alleged, with supporting affidavits, that they wish to undertake certain activities but have not yet done so for fear of prosecution under the ATA.”
Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC, 471 F. Supp. 2d 257 (E.D.N.Y 2007). “The first ATA also enacted 22 U.S.C. § 5202 , which prohibits certain actions with regard to the PLO.”
Knox v. Palestine Liberation Org., 306 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “1988) (upholding constitutionality of 22 U.S.C. § 5202 ). As discussed above, in determining questions of international comity inherent in the issue of sovereign immunity, courts must be mindful that their decisions not conflict with the laws and express public policies of the…”
Bernstein v. Clinton, 962 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D.D.C. 2013). “§ 2378c), 311 (discussing 22 U.S.C. § 5202 ).) 5 .In particular, plaintiffs claim that “[u]pon information and belief," the State Department allocated nearly $200 million from the Economic Support Fund to the Palestinian Authority in 2012 (Compl.”
Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. v. Brady, 740 F. Supp. 1007 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). “§ 3192 (a)(3) (West 1990); 22 U.S.C.A. § 5202 (1) (West 1990). Moreover, the plain language of the other statute relied upon if anything supports defendant’s contentions in that it reflects that when Congress intends that "informational materials” include telecommunications, it…”
Rafeedie v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 688 F. Supp. 729 (D.D.C. 1988). “" 22 U.S.C. § 5202 . 57 . Defendants’ final argument that Section 901 should not be applied because it is only "temporary” legislation that does not supersede the Nationality and Immigration Act is meritless.”
Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Org., 82 F.4th 64 (2d Cir. 2023). “Specifically, the plaintiffs did not dispute that the PLO and the PA were no longer “accept[ing] qualifying assistance” from the United States, and they had failed to show that the defendants were maintaining any offices “within the jurisdiction of the United States” while…”
Mendelsohn v. Meese, 686 F. Supp. 75 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “22 U.S.C.A. § 5202 (West Supp.1988). The plaintiffs seek in effect the Court’s sanction of facially illegal acts.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— 22 U.S.C. § 5202(3) — 1 case
United States v. Palestine Liberation Org., 695 F. Supp. 1456 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “Second, while the section of the ATA prohibiting the maintenance of an office applies “notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,” 22 U.S.C. § 5202 (3), it does not purport to apply notwithstanding any treaty.”
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.