But it is still there, and it fits this case, provided it can pass all the constitutional hurdles.
Plus there’s the fact that they have a diplomatic presence in the US. Back in the day when I worked in a law office in NY, we once sued France for something or other, and served papers on their consulate. If a foreign power or entity with a New York diplomatic presence shoots people indiscriminately in Israel, and injures a New York resident, my gut tells me that this power or entity is subject to US jurisdiction in New York state and federal courts.
Finally, New York jurisdiction in Products Liability cases is based on even flimsier tenets. So long as the product is made by a company with ties to interstate commerce and hurts a New York resident, there you are. I submit to you that terrorist organizations have ties to international commerce, and in fact exist to disrupt it. They did so, by harming Americans who were visiting Jerusalem. Ergo, they are liable for the faulty guns they used that do not misfire when pointed at a human being, such as those used in West World.
Not at all; at least not any more. I don't know when you worked for a New York law firm, but the Supreme Court (over the dissents of its liberal judges) has vastly reduced the scope of personal jurisdiction over the past 5 years or so. Now, for a company to be subject to jurisdiction in New York, it has to injure a New York resident in New York, and the defendant needs ties to New York, not just ties to interstate commerce. See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (2014); J. Mcintyre Co. v. Nicastro, 131 S.Ct. 2780 (2011).
As the Second Circuit noted in its decisions, the federal courts in D.C. and elsewhere have reached the same conclusion about tort suits against the PLO. This decision, as much as it sucks in its real-world consequences (and I am speaking as a Jew with nephews and nieces in Tzahal), is absolutely in the mainstream of current personal-jurisdiction law.