In the more than sixteen years since September 11, 2001, the United States has resolved, through policy at home and abroad, to vindicate the heroes and victims of that attack. From the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, to the raid that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden, the shockwaves of 9/11 have reverberated through America’s domestic and foreign policy ever since. In the only veto override of the Obama presidency, the 114th U.S. Congress brought the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) into force, intending to provide U.S. citizens with a basis to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign governments that offered material support to terrorist acts occurring on or after 9/11. Now, empowered by Congress, private citizens and the courts can disrupt the President’s unified foreign policy with respect to the suspect nation, an impermissible violation of the separation of powers doctrine. This Note argues that JASTA unconstitutionally allows private litigants and the courts to delve into the executive foreign affairs power, determining America’s stance on another nation’s responsibility for international terrorism.
Dan Cahill, The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act: An Infringement on Executive Power, 58 B.C.L. Rev. 1699 (2017), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol58/iss5/7