Full Breakdown
Federal Judge Allows Pay-for-Slay Lawsuit Against Palestinian Authority and PLO to Proceed
8/13/2026, 1:00:01 AM
Core Event
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon denied a motion by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to dismiss a civil suit brought by two American victims of Palestinian-linked terrorism. The plaintiffs—Stuart Force, father of Taylor Force, and Hananel Gez, an Israeli-American who survived a 2025 shooting that killed his pregnant wife and newborn son—assert that the PA’s “pay-for-slay” program, which provides financial benefits to prisoners and families of individuals convicted of attacks against Israel, constituted assistance for the attacks. Judge McMahon ruled that the plaintiffs’ allegations plausibly describe a publicized promise of payment that may meet the assistance standard under the Antiterrorism Act, and ordered the defendants to answer the complaint by a September deadline.
Background & Context
The PA operates a payment system that awards cash to Palestinians imprisoned for “the struggle against the occupation” and to families of those killed in attacks. The program, administered by the Palestinian National Institution for Economic Empowerment after a 2025 transfer from the Social Development Ministry, has been described by officials as welfare but is tied to confirmed terrorist activity. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has publicly acknowledged that the funds are intended to cover salaries of individuals convicted of terrorism. Critics argue that the payments rise with the length of the prison sentence, effectively scaling with the severity of the attack.
Data & Statistics
- The PA’s payment schedule increases the amount based on the length of the inmate’s sentence.
Official Statements & Responses
- Judge McMahon wrote that the case will proceed to discovery to determine whether the attackers knew of and relied upon the promised payments.
- Rabbi Dr.
- The PA and PLO argued that a payment made after an attack cannot be considered assistance, that their funding is indiscriminate across factions, and that prior statements by the plaintiffs should bar the suit. The judge rejected each of these arguments.
Criticism & Opposition
The PA’s legal team contended that the plaintiffs’ claim amounts to an improper attempt to hold the PA liable for actions taken by Hamas, a rival organization, and that the alleged “encouragement” does not meet the legal definition of assistance. They also maintained that the plaintiffs’ earlier litigation should preclude this action under the doctrine of judicial barrenness.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Renaming the ledger does not change what it pays for. Discovery will follow the money, and one of the attackers had already been imprisoned for terror activity, so the complaint alleges he knew exactly what he and his family stood to receive,” — Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center
What’s Next
The PA and PLO must file a formal answer to the complaint by the court-set September deadline. Subsequent discovery will focus on whether the attackers were aware of the promised payments and whether those promises influenced their decisions to carry out the attacks. A verdict could impose treble damages under the Antiterrorism Act and potentially reshape the PA’s financial support mechanisms for prisoners and families.
