Whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The PSJVTA deems these entities to have consented to jurisdiction in Antiterrorism Act (ATA) cases if they engage in specified conduct, such as paying salaries to terrorists or maintaining facilities in the United States. The Court must determine if federal courts are subject to the same personal jurisdiction limitations as state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Petitioners seek to hold respondents liable for acts of international terrorism under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA).
• They argue that the PSJVTA provides a valid statutory basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA.
• They contend that the Fifth Amendment imposes no territorial limits on the personal jurisdiction of federal courts.

• Respondents seek to avoid the exercise of personal jurisdiction in U.S. courts, arguing that the PSJVTA violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• They urge the Court to apply the "minimum contacts" framework established under the Fourteenth Amendment and *International Shoe Co. v. Washington*.
• They argue that considerations of fairness and individual liberty justify applying jurisdictional limitations to federal courts equivalent to those applied to state courts.

• The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
• The Court declines to import the Fourteenth Amendment "minimum contacts" standard into the Fifth Amendment because the two Amendments were "engrafted upon the Constitution at different times and in widely different circumstances," as noted in *French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.*
• The Court reasons that the Fourteenth Amendment's limits are driven by "interstate federalism" to ensure states do not reach beyond their status as coequal sovereigns (*World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson*), a concern that does not apply to the Federal Government's nationwide and extraterritorial authority (*United States v. Bennett*).
• General fairness considerations relevant to the Fourteenth Amendment do not compel equivalent jurisdictional limits on federal courts because "whether a judicial judgment is lawful depends on whether the sovereign has authority to render it" (*J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro*).
• The Court defers to the political branches' considered judgment in passing the PSJVTA as part of a comprehensive response to deter international terrorism, noting that such foreign affairs powers must be exercised within constitutional bounds (*American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi*) but warrant "respectful review" (*Bank Markazi v. Peterson*).
• The statute is suitably limited because it applies only to ATA cases and ties jurisdiction to narrow predicates—payments to terrorists or U.S.-based activities—that bear a meaningful relationship to the United States.
• Even if a "reasonableness" inquiry were required under *Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.*, the PSJVTA satisfies it by balancing the burden on defendants, the compelling interest of the Federal Government in deterring terror, and the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief.