We will hear argument this morning in case 2420,

Fold v. Palestine Liberation Organization and the consolidated case.

Mr. Yolowitz.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

the United States can take many actions in response to terror activity abroad

by the PLO and the PA that kills American citizens.

The government could, for example, prosecute them under our criminal laws, and they admit

doing so would not violate any due process rights.

They contend, however, that bringing a civil action crosses a red line is unconstitutional under the due process clause.

That is incorrect.

The federal government's sphere of sovereignty is sufficiently broad that it follows American citizens wherever in the world they might travel.

The government could, for example, simply ban payments to terrorists who have killed Americans

and concomitantly could establish federal jurisdiction when that ban is violated.

Here, the government took a smaller step of providing that if the PLO and the PA make

post-enactment payments to terrorists or engage in post-enactment U.S. activities, that will be

deemed a submission to the jurisdiction of federal courts

in a narrow class of cases closely related to terrorism.

The statute gave the defendants fair warning. Their conduct was knowing and voluntary.

The statute reasonably advances legitimate government interests in the context of our federal system.

The judgment of the Court should be reversed. I welcome the Court's questions.

If we analyze this under the Fifth Amendment, what limitations would the Fifth Amendment provide for personal jurisdiction?

So first of all, the Fifth Amendment requires fair notice and opportunity to be heard, which the defendants had.

...