The approaching JASTA deadline: Potential filing activity and implications

Later this month, the window will close on certain lawsuits related to terrorist attacks reaching back 25 years.

Congress enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) on September 28, 2016 to amend the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Whereas the ATA authorized United States nationals injured by acts of international terrorism to bring claims against persons who committed the terrorist acts, JASTA expanded the ATA’s reach to include claims for aiding and abetting or conspiring to bring about those acts. In the ensuing years, plaintiffs have brought a substantial volume of litigation against such secondary actors. These lawsuits have focused on financial institutions, including major global banks, and increasingly have asserted claims against companies in other sectors, including technology, hospitality, telecommunications, and industrial companies.

In enacting JASTA, Congress did not alter the ATA’s ten-year statute of limitations but declared that the JASTA amendment would apply to lawsuits “pending on, or commenced on or after, the dates of [its] enactment” and “arising out of any injury . . . on or after September 11, 2001.” 18 U.S.C. § 2333 note (“Applicability”). In Moses v. BNP Paribas, S.A., 802 F. Supp. 3d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), the US District Court for the Southern District of New York interpreted this provision to mean that, for secondary liability claims under JASTA, the ten-year statute of limitations runs from JASTA’s enactment on September 28, 2016, rather than from the date of injury, as it generally does for primary liability claims under the ATA. 

In other words, under Moses, claims for aiding and abetting or conspiracy under JASTA arising from injuries dating back to September 11, 2001 remain timely until September 28, 2026. After that date, JASTA claims arising from injuries occurring on or before September 28, 2016 will be time-barred.    

Given the impending deadline, additional JASTA cases may be filed in the remaining weeks before September 28, 2026. As discussed below, companies that have previously been the subject of US government actions could be among the entities named as defendants in such complaints. 

The timeliness defense

For companies named in complaints filed in advance of the deadline, timeliness remains an open question and may provide a basis for defense, particularly where the alleged conduct predates JASTA’s enactment by more than a decade.

While the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has observed that Congress “accorded JASTA a measure of retroactive effect,” Kaplan v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 999 F.3d 842, 857 (2d Cir. 2021), no appellate court has resolved the contours of JASTA’s retroactivity. Specifically, no appellate court has resolved whether JASTA permits new lawsuits arising from injuries dating back to September 11, 2001 to be filed through September 28, 2026. 

The defendant in Moses has asked the district court to certify the question for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit, but that request remains pending. It may be some time before the issue is addressed by the appellate courts. In the meantime, plaintiffs’ law firms may continue to assume that the rule set forth in Moses remains in effect and act accordingly before September 28, 2026.   

A potential wave of complaints

Upcoming JASTA lawsuits may continue to focus on defendants in the financial sector and may include lawsuits related to terrorist attacks that have already been the subject of ATA and JASTA litigation, as plaintiffs’ firms seek to make use of the knowledge and experience gained from prior lawsuits. 

Future litigation is also likely to include lawsuits against new defendants and not be limited to conflicts and attacks that have already been the subject of litigation. Plaintiffs may increasingly introduce claims involving companies in industries beyond the financial sector, such as telecommunications, logistics, and infrastructure. In recent years, there have been an increasing number of lawsuits alleging “knowing and substantial assistance” based on the provision of physical infrastructure and operational concessions. For example, one pending case in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York proceeded past the motion-to-dismiss stage based on allegations that a major telecommunications company aided and abetted attacks by, among other things, deactivating specific cell towers at specific times at a terrorist group’s request. 

In future lawsuits, companies that had operational interactions with violent groups in any conflict zones between 2001 and 2016 may be included as defendants, and companies that have been the subject of government actions relating to material support to terrorists, particularly US Department of Justice settlements, deferred prosecution agreements, or criminal pleas, may face heightened risk of being named, as plaintiffs routinely cite such government resolutions as evidence at the pleading stage. 

Whether plaintiffs’ theories, and ultimately evidence, satisfy the requirements for culpable, voluntary participation as set out by the US Supreme Court in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), remains a case-specific question. Given the approaching deadline for claims arising from injuries between September 11, 2001 and September 28, 2016, additional lawsuits may be filed in the coming weeks, and the sufficiency of those claims could be tested through dispositive motions.

Contact us

If you have questions about primary liability under the ATA, secondary liability under JASTA, or related issues, please contact the authors.