Chava Rachel Mark, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of T. B. M., R. L. M., and E. B. M., Minors, et al. v. Republic of Sudan, et al.

The petitioners, victims of a Sudan-sponsored Hamas terrorist attack, sued Sudan under the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1605A. Subsequently, the government entered into a comprehensive settlement with Sudan and removed Sudan from the list of designated state sponsors of terrorism. The settlement provided compensation for all of Sudan’s terrorism victims except the petitioners and other victims of Sudan-sponsored Hamas terrorist attacks. The settlement included legislation that removed subject matter jurisdiction for all terrorism claims against Sudan except those arising out of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Sudan Claims Resolution Act (“SCRA”), Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260 (2020) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605A (note)). The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the settlement. The D.C. Circuit analyzed the constitutionality of the jurisdiction-stripping provision without considering its interdependence with the other terms of the settlement. Finding that provision to be valid, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners’ constitutional challenges to other parts of the settlement and to the settlement as a whole. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, as the D.C. Circuit held, the SCRA st r ipped t he cou r t s of ju r isd ict ion over constitutional challenges to the rest of the settlement or the settlement as a whole, and if so, whether the denial of any judicial forum for these constitutional claims is, itself, unconstitutional.