The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA” or “Act”) was passed by Congress on 28
September 2016 and according to Act, was implemented to permit persons and entities injured as a
result of terrorist attacks committed in the United States (“US”) to pursue civil claims against
foreign countries. President Obama had earlier vetoed the Act which, for the first time in his
administration, Congress has overridden.
Before the implementation of JASTA, it was not permissible for a US national to pursue civil claims
of this nature against a foreign state on the basis of sovereign immunity. JASTA amends the
federal judicial code (the “United States Code”) in order to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign
immunity from the jurisdiction of US courts. The resulting effect of JASTA may open the gate for
US nationals to seek compensation from foreign states for injuries sustained as a result of acts of
international terrorism where a foreign state or any of its officials, employees or agents has also
engaged in a tortious act or acts in connection therewith.
As JASTA legislation pertains to civil actions “arising out of an injury to a person, property or
business on or after September 11, 2001” 1, it is widely recognised that JASTA was implemented as a result of the 9/11 terrorist acts committed in the US. Although the Saudi Arabian government
strenuously denies ever having supported the terrorists of 9/11, it is expected that Saudi Arabia
will be affected by the Act, given that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian
What is the Purpose of JASTA?
As mentioned above, JASTA seeks to allow all persons and entities injured as a result of terrorist
activities the recourse to civil claims against those responsible for inflicting injuries to such
persons or entities.
Specifically, JASTA’s stated purpose is to provide civil litigants with the “broadest possible
basis … to seek relief against persons, entities and foreign countries … that have provided
material support or resources, directly or indirectly, to foreign organisations or persons that
engage in terrorist activities against the [US].”2
In enacting JASTA, Congress found, among other things, that “persons, entities or countries that
knowingly or recklessly contribute material support or resources, directly or indirectly, to
persons or organisations that pose a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten
the security of nationals of the United States or the national security, foreign policy, or economy
of the United States, necessarily direct their conduct at the United States, and should reasonably anticipate being
brought to court in the United States to answer for such activities” (emphasis added)3.
What is the Scope of JASTA?
The concept of sovereign immunity prevents a state from having a civil action being brought against
it (by individuals and states), subject to certain exceptions, without its consent. JASTA,
however, has narrowed the scope of sovereign immunity with respect to acts of international
terrorism by asserting as follows:
“… a foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the [US] in any case
… for physical injury to person or property or death occurring in the [US] and caused by
(1) an act of international terrorism in the [US]; and
(2) a tortious act or acts of the foreign states, 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.”4
The resulting impact of the provisions in (1) and (2) above means that if an act of international
terrorism occurs on US soil (by a national of a foreign state) irrespective of whether the person
acting on behalf of the foreign state is outside of the US, the sovereign immunity previously
applicable to that foreign state may no longer apply. Put simply, a civil litigant may pursue a
civil action in the US courts against the foreign state.
JASTA makes clear that reference to “international terrorism” has the same definition as in the
United States Code, meaning violent acts that are dangerous to human life and are a violation of
the criminal laws of the US or any State, and that would constitute a criminal violation if
committed in the US. Further, the terrorist act must be intended to intimidate or coerce civilians,
influence government policy, or affect a government’s conduct by mass destruction, assassination or
kidnapping and occurs primarily outside of the US.5
The Act further clarifies that a foreign state will still retain its sovereign immunity if an
omission or a tortious act “constitutes mere negligence”6. Therefore, any omission or tortious
act committed by a foreign state or an official, employee or agent of such foreign state must constitute more than negligence in order for the foreign state to lose its immunity protection under JASTA.
Aiding and Abetting
In addition to lifting the doctrine of sovereign immunity, JASTA also provides secondary liability,
asserting that “… any person who aids and abets by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or
who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”7 This
secondary liability is only applicable however to international terrorism that is planned or
authorised by an organisation that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organisation as
provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act. A foreign terrorist organisation is categorised
as a foreign organisation that “… engages in terrorist activity or terrorism (… or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and … the organisation
threatens the security of US nationals or the national security of the US.”8 Contrary to the above section regarding sovereign immunity, “person” for purposes of this Section of JASTA is broadly defined and includes natural persons.
When did JASTA come into effect?
The amendments made to the United States Code by JASTA are applicable to any civil action pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment of JASTA; and arising out of an injury to a person, property, or business on or after 11 September, 2001.
Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations
Notwithstanding its narrowing effects on sovereign immunity, JASTA does permit the US Attorney
General to intervene in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a US
court for the purpose of seeking a stay of the civil action. The court may stay a proceeding
against a foreign state if US 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.”9 A
stay brought under JASTA may be granted for no longer than 180 days; however the Attorney General may petition the court for an extension of the stay for additional 180-day periods, provided that a recertification is given by the US Secretary of State as to the state of negotiations with the
Potential Implications of JASTA
Proponents of JASTA argue that it is justified on the basis that governments should be able to be
held accountable where their people commit acts of international terrorism and the government
committed a tortious act or acts in connection with such acts.
Critics of JASTA, including President Obama’s administration and the Central Intelligence Agency
(“CIA”), argue that JASTA will have severe implications for the national security of the United
States, so much so, that CIA Director John O. Brennan has recently stated that “any legislation
that affects sovereign immunity should take into account the associated risks to our national
security.”10 This viewpoint is based on the fact that sovereign immunity is a reciprocal
arrangement, with the concern being that it could make the US exposed to similar litigation in
foreign courts that could affect US officials working overseas if other states impose retaliatory
legislation. In addition, critics also argue that JASTA could significantly weaken the relationship
the US has with other states, such as Saudi Arabia which, as mentioned above, is one foreign state
that could largely be impacted by JASTA.
Despite being passed by Congress with 97 – 1 in favour in the Senate and 348 – 77 in favour in the
House, following the severe criticism of the Act, there has been speculation that legislators may
seek to revisit and modify JASTA after the US Presidential elections in November 2016. However, it is not yet clear to what extent legislators shall seek to modify the Act, or indeed whether the
narrowing in scope of sovereign immunity shall be amended.
1 S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 114th Congress (2015-2016), §7.
2 S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 114th Congress (2015-2016), §2(b).
3 S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 114th Congress (2015-2016), §2(a)(6).
4 S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 114th Congress (2015-2016), §3 to be codified
at 28 U.S.C. §1605B.
5 18 U.S.C. §2331.
6 S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 114th Congress (2015-2016), §3.
7 S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 114th Congress (2015-2016), §4 to be codified
at 18 U.S.C. §2333.
8 8 U.S.C. §1189.
9 S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, 114th Congress (2015-2016), §5(c)(1).
10 Statement from Director Brennan on JASTA, available at: https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2016-press-releases-statements/statement-from-director-brennan-on-justice-against-sponsors-of-terrorism-act.html
Monday, October 31, 2016
Implications of Narrowing the Scope of Sovereign Immunity Imposed by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act