Anti-terrorism lawsuits are civil cases brought under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act that let American victims of international terrorism sue the people, banks, charities, and even foreign governments that funded or supported the attackers. A winning plaintiff can recover three times their actual damages plus attorney’s fees, and the theory driving most of these cases is that terrorist groups cannot operate without money, so the entities moving that money can be held liable in U.S. federal court.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 2333 – Civil Remedies
What the Anti-Terrorism Act Allows
The statute at the center of this litigation is the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2333. It gives any U.S. national injured by an act of international terrorism the right to file a civil suit in federal court. Success carries treble damages plus attorney’s fees.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 2333 – Civil Remedies
In practice, plaintiffs’ lawyers use the statute to pursue the funding pipeline rather than the attackers themselves. That means suing banks that processed wire transfers, charities alleged to have served as fronts, and governments accused of looking the other way. The reasoning is that a terrorist organization cannot function without financing, and the entities providing or moving that financing can be held civilly liable to the people harmed.
How JASTA Expanded Who Can Be Sued
Congress broadened the law in 2016 with the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA. The amendment did two important things. First, it stripped foreign governments of sovereign immunity for acts of international terrorism committed against Americans. Second, it created secondary liability, meaning anyone who aids, abets, or conspires with a designated foreign terrorist organization can be sued. JASTA applies retroactively to injuries sustained on or after September 11, 2001.2Motley Rice. Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
That expansion is why present-day anti-terrorism lawsuits can name not only Hamas or al Qaeda but also the banks that allegedly processed their transactions and the sovereign states accused of enabling them.
Suing the Banks: The Arab Bank Verdict
The landmark example of an ATA case against a financial institution is Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleged that Arab Bank, a Jordanian institution with a New York branch, knowingly processed financial transactions tied to Hamas operations. Roughly 130 American plaintiffs were represented, with related actions covering about 6,000 foreign victims.3Motley Rice. Arab Bank Litigation
On September 22, 2014, a jury unanimously found Arab Bank liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, linking the bank to 24 Hamas attacks between 2001 and 2004 that killed or injured Americans. It was the first time a financial institution had ever been tried and found liable under the statute.3Motley Rice. Arab Bank Litigation The parties reached a confidential settlement in August 2015 to resolve the damages phase.4Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. Zuckerman Spaeder Secures Settlement With Arab Bank Following Precedent-Setting Victory on Terrorism
The verdict itself did not survive on appeal. In February 2018, a three-judge Second Circuit panel vacated it, finding that the district court had given faulty jury instructions on what constitutes “international terrorism” under the ATA. Because the settlement was already in place, no new trial followed.5Lawfare. Summary of Second Circuit Opinion in Linde v. Arab Bank The case still stands as the proof of concept that a bank can be brought to trial under the statute and that a jury will impose liability when the evidence supports it.
Suing a Foreign Government: The September 11 MDL
The longest-running anti-terrorism lawsuit is the consolidated civil action brought by families and survivors of the September 11 attacks against alleged financiers of al Qaeda. The original suit, Thomas Burnett Sr. et al. v. Al Baraka Banking and Investment, et al., was filed in August 2002 and later consolidated as In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (MDL No. 1570) in the Southern District of New York.6Motley Rice. September 11 Litigation
The MDL represents more than 6,600 survivors and family members with claims against individuals, banks, corporations, charities, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, alleging these defendants provided the funding and logistical support behind the attacks.7Motley Rice. Anti-Terrorism
The path against Saudi Arabia has been slow. In December 2013, the Second Circuit reversed a decision dismissing claims against the kingdom, and in June 2014, the Supreme Court declined Saudi Arabia’s appeal, allowing the case to proceed. JASTA’s passage in 2016 strengthened the plaintiffs’ position by removing the sovereign immunity defense.6Motley Rice. September 11 Litigation In August 2025, Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Saudi Arabia could not escape the families’ claims, finding the victims had “adequately alleged their claims fall under an exception that waives the kingdom’s sovereign immunity.”8Law360. 9/11 MDL Families Clear Immunity Hurdle to Sue Saudi Arabia The MDL remains active before Judge Daniels, with filings as recent as January 2026.9CourtListener. In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001
Newer Frontiers: Cartels and the October 7 Attack
The reach of anti-terrorism lawsuits keeps expanding as the executive branch designates new foreign terrorist organizations. In March 2025, the family of DEA Special Agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena filed what is believed to be the first ATA suit targeting a Mexican drug-trafficking organization. The case was brought in San Diego federal court against the Sinaloa Cartel and three individuals: Rafael Caro Quintero, Miguel Angel Félix Gallardo, and Ernesto “Don Neto” Fonseca Carrillo. Camarena was kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Mexico in 1985.10San Diego Union-Tribune. Family’s Anti-Terrorism Suit Trods New Ground in Targeting Sinaloa Cartel for DEA Agent’s Killing
The suit was made possible by a February 2025 State Department designation of the Sinaloa Cartel as a foreign terrorist organization, following an executive order from President Trump. The legal theory relies on successor liability: the argument is that the modern Sinaloa Cartel can be held responsible for the earlier Guadalajara Cartel’s acts because its founders formed the successor organization. Because designated terrorist groups rarely appear to defend themselves, the plaintiffs’ team expects default judgments.10San Diego Union-Tribune. Family’s Anti-Terrorism Suit Trods New Ground in Targeting Sinaloa Cartel for DEA Agent’s Killing
In November 2024, a consortium of firms filed a wrongful-death lawsuit in D.C. federal court on behalf of families affected by the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. The defendants include the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, all named as coordinators and financiers of the attack.11National Law Journal. Attorneys Go to D.C. Federal Court Seeking Damages for Plaintiffs in Oct. 7, 2023 Attack on Israel
Similar theories have driven earlier cases involving Iranian-backed groups. U.S. service members and contractors attacked by explosively formed penetrators in Iraq between 2005 and 2012 brought suits alleging that certain banks masked wire transactions enabling the manufacture and deployment of those weapons. That litigation is no longer active.12Motley Rice. EFP Roadside Bomb Lawsuits
What the ATA Does Not Reach: Foreign Plaintiffs and Foreign Corporations
The Anti-Terrorism Act is a remedy for U.S. nationals. Foreign victims of terrorism have sometimes tried a different route, the Alien Tort Statute, but the Supreme Court narrowed that path sharply. In Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, decided April 24, 2018, the Court ruled 5–4 that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion cited separation-of-powers concerns and the risk of diplomatic friction. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.13Justia. Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC The decision closed a door for foreign plaintiffs suing foreign corporations for overseas abuses, but it did not affect the ATA claims brought by American plaintiffs against the same defendants.
The through line across every one of these cases is money. Anti-terrorism lawsuits work when plaintiffs can trace funding or logistical support from a solvent, reachable defendant to the attack that harmed them, and when Congress or the executive branch has cleared the legal path to hold that defendant accountable.