U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 97— JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES

28 U.S.C. § 1605B

Responsibility of foreign states for international terrorism against the United States

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Definition.—In this section, the term “international terrorism”—(1) has the meaning given the term in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code; and(2) does not include any act of war (as defined in that section).(b)Responsibility of Foreign States.—A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any case in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for physical injury to person or property or death occurring in the United States and caused by—(1) an act of international terrorism in the United States; and(2) a tortious act or acts of the foreign state, or of any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, regardless where the tortious act or acts of the foreign state occurred.(c)Claims by Nationals of the United States.—Notwithstanding section 2337(2) of title 18, a national of the United States may bring a claim against a foreign state in accordance with section 2333 of that title if the foreign state would not be immune under subsection (b).(d)Rule of Construction.—A foreign state shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States under subsection (b) on the basis of an omission or a tortious act or acts that constitute mere negligence.(Added Pub. L. 114–222, § 3(a), Sept. 28, 2016, 130 Stat. 853.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to any civil action pending on, or commenced on or after, Sept. 28, 2016, and arising out of an injury to a person, property, or business on or after Sept. 11, 2001, see section 7 of Pub. L. 114–222, set out as an Effective Date of 2016 Amendment note under section 2333 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations

Pub. L. 114–222, § 5, Sept. 28, 2016, 130 Stat. 854, provided that:“(a)Exclusive Jurisdiction.—The courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act.“(b)Intervention.—The Attorney General may intervene in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, for the purpose of seeking a stay of the civil action, in whole or in part.“(c)Stay.—“(1)In general.—A court of the United States may stay a proceeding against a foreign state if the Secretary of State certifies that the United States is engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.“(2)Duration.—“(A)In general.—A stay under this section may be granted for not more than 180 days.“(B)Extension.—“(i)In general.—The Attorney General may petition the court for an extension of the stay for additional 180-day periods.“(ii)Recertification.—A court shall grant an extension under clause (i) if the Secretary of State recertifies that the United States remains engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army (In re Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001), 298 F. Supp. 3d 631 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army (In re Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001), 298 F. Supp. 3d 631 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 9× “As described more fully below, JASTA created, among other things, a new exception to the FSIA which does not incorporate the noncommercial tort exception's entire tort rule and, unlike the FSIA's terrorism exception, does not require that the defendant be designated a state…”
Lusik Usoyan v. Repub. of Turkey, 6 F.4th 31 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “§ 2333 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(c). The Kurd plaintiffs separately allege false imprisonment, as well as civil claims under the Alien Tort Statute, see 28 U.”
Schansman v. Sberbank, 128 F.4th 70 (2d Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “As relevant here, the JASTA amendments added (1) a new provision to the FSIA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605B (the “FSIA JASTA Amendment”), and (2) a new provision to the ATA, codified at 18 U.”
In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 117 F.4th 13 (2d Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 1605A, including its repealed predecessor statute, § 1605(a)(7); and (2) the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605B. 6 Second, the district court found that it had personal jurisdiction over Sudan.”
Usoyan v. Repub. of Turkey (D.D.C. 2025). · cites it 10× “6 Section 1605(a)(5) reads, in relevant part: 6 In this case, Plaintiffs separately invoke jurisdiction under another FSIA exception: the “international terrorism” exception created by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605B. (See Pls.’ Mot. at…”
Benjamin Watson, Jr. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (11th Cir. 2025). · cites it 6× “28 U.S.C § 1605B. Thus, six distinct elements are required by JASTA: (1) money damages are sought; (2) against a foreign state; (3) for physical in- jury to person or property or death; (4) the injury or death occurred in the United States; (5) the injury or death was caused by…”
Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (N.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 4× “JASTA Exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605B As accurately stated in the R&R, the JASTA exception to foreign sovereign immunity, allows suit against a foreign state if: (b) .”
Krua v. Sirleaf (D. Mass. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 1350 , and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605B. D. 9 at 17-18.4 Neither statute provides a cause of action for the Kruas against BMM here.”
Agyeman v. Bondi (D.D.C. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 20144 to exclude from eligibility individuals who obtain judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1605B. See Compl. ¶¶ 205–10; 5 U.”
Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001 v. Al Rajhi Bank, 295 F. Supp. 3d 416 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “" (Opp'n at 7 (quoting JASTA § 2(b), 130 Stat.”
Yirenkyi v. U.S. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C. 2023). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(b) (emphasis added). Because none of the injuries complained of occurred here, that provision cannot apply.”
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “3d at 639 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(b)). B. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pled Proximate Causation, the Appropriate Standard for Jurisdictional Causation Under the FSIA Terrorism Exceptions The law of the case in this multidistrict litigation provides that jurisdictional causation…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(b) — 11 cases
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army (In re Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001), 298 F. Supp. 3d 631 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “As described more fully below, JASTA created, among other things, a new exception to the FSIA which does not incorporate the noncommercial tort exception's entire tort rule and, unlike the FSIA's terrorism exception, does not require that the defendant be designated a state…”
In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 117 F.4th 13 (2d Cir. 2024). “§ 1605A, including its repealed predecessor statute, § 1605(a)(7); and (2) the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605B. 6 Second, the district court found that it had personal jurisdiction over Sudan.”
Schansman v. Sberbank, 128 F.4th 70 (2d Cir. 2025). “As relevant here, the JASTA amendments added (1) a new provision to the FSIA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605B (the “FSIA JASTA Amendment”), and (2) a new provision to the ATA, codified at 18 U.”
Benjamin Watson, Jr. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (11th Cir. 2025). “28 U.S.C § 1605B. Thus, six distinct elements are required by JASTA: (1) money damages are sought; (2) against a foreign state; (3) for physical in- jury to person or property or death; (4) the injury or death occurred in the United States; (5) the injury or death was caused by…”
Usoyan v. Repub. of Turkey (D.D.C. 2025). “6 Section 1605(a)(5) reads, in relevant part: 6 In this case, Plaintiffs separately invoke jurisdiction under another FSIA exception: the “international terrorism” exception created by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605B. (See Pls.’ Mot. at…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(b)(2) — 1 case
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army (In re Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001), 298 F. Supp. 3d 631 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “As described more fully below, JASTA created, among other things, a new exception to the FSIA which does not incorporate the noncommercial tort exception's entire tort rule and, unlike the FSIA's terrorism exception, does not require that the defendant be designated a state…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(c) — 5 cases
Lusik Usoyan v. Repub. of Turkey, 6 F.4th 31 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “§ 2333 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(c). The Kurd plaintiffs separately allege false imprisonment, as well as civil claims under the Alien Tort Statute, see 28 U.”
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army (In re Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001), 298 F. Supp. 3d 631 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “As described more fully below, JASTA created, among other things, a new exception to the FSIA which does not incorporate the noncommercial tort exception's entire tort rule and, unlike the FSIA's terrorism exception, does not require that the defendant be designated a state…”
Schansman v. Sberbank, 128 F.4th 70 (2d Cir. 2025). “As relevant here, the JASTA amendments added (1) a new provision to the FSIA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605B (the “FSIA JASTA Amendment”), and (2) a new provision to the ATA, codified at 18 U.”
Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (N.D. Fla. 2024). “JASTA Exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605B As accurately stated in the R&R, the JASTA exception to foreign sovereign immunity, allows suit against a foreign state if: (b) .”
Usoyan v. Repub. of Turkey (D.D.C. 2025). “6 Section 1605(a)(5) reads, in relevant part: 6 In this case, Plaintiffs separately invoke jurisdiction under another FSIA exception: the “international terrorism” exception created by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1605B. (See Pls.’ Mot. at…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1605B(d) — 3 cases
Ashton v. Al Qaeda Islamic Army (In re Terrorist Attacks On Sept. 11, 2001), 298 F. Supp. 3d 631 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “As described more fully below, JASTA created, among other things, a new exception to the FSIA which does not incorporate the noncommercial tort exception's entire tort rule and, unlike the FSIA's terrorism exception, does not require that the defendant be designated a state…”
Benjamin Watson, Jr. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (11th Cir. 2025). “28 U.S.C § 1605B. Thus, six distinct elements are required by JASTA: (1) money damages are sought; (2) against a foreign state; (3) for physical in- jury to person or property or death; (4) the injury or death occurred in the United States; (5) the injury or death was caused by…”
Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (N.D. Fla. 2024). “JASTA Exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605B As accurately stated in the R&R, the JASTA exception to foreign sovereign immunity, allows suit against a foreign state if: (b) .”
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.