The LIABLE Act creates an exception to the jurisdictional immunity of international organizations, allowing lawsuits against them in U.S. courts for personal injury or death caused by their officials or agents through specific acts of terrorism under certain conditions.
Ted Cruz
Senator
TX
The LIABLE Act creates a new exception to the general immunity shielding international organizations from lawsuits in U.S. courts when terrorism is involved. This allows individuals to sue an international organization if an employee caused death or injury through specific terrorist acts while working for the organization. Lawsuits are permitted only if the organization materially supported a designated foreign terrorist organization and the claimant or victim had a connection to the U.S. or if the organization has a significant U.S. presence. Claims must be filed within 20 years of the injury or death.
LIABLE Act Exposes International Organizations to U.S. Lawsuits Over Terrorism, Sets 20-Year Limit
The Limiting Immunity for Assisting Backers of Lethal Extremism Act, or the LIABLE Act, is a major shift in how the U.S. handles international organizations that might be linked—even loosely—to terrorism. If you thought these global groups, like the UN or the World Bank, were completely shielded from being sued in U.S. courts, this bill says: not anymore. It carves out a specific exception to their long-standing legal immunity.
When Immunity Fails: The Terrorism Trigger
What this bill does is create a new pathway for victims of terrorism to seek damages against an international organization. Specifically, an organization loses its immunity if one of its officials, employees, or agents commits an act of terrorism—like hostage-taking, torture, or providing material support for such acts—while on the job (SEC. 2). This means if an employee of an international aid agency, for example, is caught directly helping a terrorist group plan an attack, the organization itself could be dragged into a U.S. courtroom.
But it’s not an open invitation to sue every organization. For a U.S. court to take the case, two big conditions must be met. First, the international organization must have actively conspired with or materially supported a group that the U.S. officially lists as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Second, there needs to be a clear U.S. connection: either the victim or the claimant was a U.S. national or employee at the time of the incident, or the international organization must be based in the U.S. or have a “significant presence” here (SEC. 2).
Accountability for Victims, Headaches for International Law
For victims of terrorism, particularly U.S. citizens or service members injured abroad, this bill offers a specific legal remedy where none existed before. It’s about accountability: if an organization is enabling terror, even indirectly, it should face consequences. If a U.S. contractor working overseas is injured in an attack facilitated by an organization’s employee, they now have a defined path to sue. You have up to 20 years from the date of the injury or death to file the claim, which is a significant window given the long-term nature of these legal battles.
However, the language here creates some potential friction points. The terms “materially supported” and “significant presence” are going to be heavily debated in court. What exactly counts as “material support” to a terrorist group? Providing a vehicle? Sharing information? These definitions are crucial because they determine whether an organization’s immunity shield holds up or not. Also, U.S. courts gaining new jurisdiction over international entities could strain diplomatic relations, as these organizations previously enjoyed near-total immunity under international law. This is the U.S. asserting its legal authority in a space that has traditionally been treated as neutral and legally protected.