The case was brought under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a 2016 statute allowing U.S. nationals to sue individuals or entities that knowingly assist terrorists.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case. The panel found that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the banks knowingly provided substantial assistance to the specific acts of terrorism that caused their injuries. The decision cited the need to meet a high legal threshold set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2023 case Twitter v. Taamneh, which clarified that aiding-and-abetting liability under JASTA requires a clear demonstration of intent and direct connection to the harmful acts.
“While the court recognizes the gravity of the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs, we must adhere to the rigorous standards established by law,” the opinion stated. “Absent clear evidence that the banks acted with the conscious purpose of supporting terrorist attacks, their conduct does not meet the standard required under JASTA.”
The lawsuit had claimed that the banks processed hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions for Iranian clients despite sanctions, thereby enabling Iran’s support for terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and the Taliban. Plaintiffs argued that this financial facilitation made the banks complicit in subsequent attacks. However, the court determined that these connections were too attenuated to sustain legal liability.
Legal experts say the ruling underscores the difficulty of holding financial institutions accountable for indirect involvement in global terrorism—especially when the evidentiary bar is high. “This case reinforces the precedent that plaintiffs must do more than show general wrongdoing by banks; they must show a specific and knowing link to the attacks,” said a national security law professor at NYU.
