Supreme Court Ends Lawsuit Alleging a Bank Helped Hamas

June 5, 2025

Overview

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman upheld strict limits on reopening lawsuits, denying victims and families of Hamas-led terrorist attacks from 2001 to 2003 the chance to revise their claims against BLOM Bank SAL, a Lebanese bank accused of aiding Hamas through financial services. This ruling reinforces U.S. policies targeting Hamas’s financial networks while aligning with broader support for Israel’s security. However, it also intersects with growing U.S. societal tensions, as protests against American military aid to Israel highlight divisions over foreign policy. The case underscores a trend where terror victims sue companies for unknowingly facilitating violence, raising questions about whether U.S. defense Contractors face similar litigation abroad for civilian casualties.

Facts

Hamas, designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. since 1997, conducted attacks in Israel from 2001 to 2003, killing and injuring civilians, including U.S. citizens.
In 2019, plaintiffs sued BLOM Bank SAL under the Anti-Terrorism Act (18 U.S.C. § 2333), alleging the bank provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated customers, such as the Sanabil Association for Relief and Development.
The U.S. District Court dismissed the case in 2019, finding insufficient evidence that BLOM knowingly aided Hamas. Plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint.
The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in 2021 but clarified the legal standard for aiding-and-abetting liability.
Plaintiffs sought to reopen the case in 2022 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), but the Supreme Court ruled on June 5, 2025, that such relief requires “extraordinary circumstances,” denying their request (BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. ___ (2025)).
The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Hamas-linked entities, including Sanabil, designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization in 2003.

Perspectives

Plaintiffs (Victims and Families): Represented by counsel, plaintiffs argue that banks like BLOM enable terrorism by processing funds for Hamas affiliates, even if unknowingly. They view lawsuits as critical for holding financial institutions accountable and securing justice for terror victims.
BLOM Bank SAL: The bank denies knowledge of its customers’ ties to Hamas, asserting its services were routine. It praises the Supreme Court’s ruling for protecting businesses from prolonged litigation, emphasizing the need for judicial finality.
U.S. State Department (via public statements): The State Department supports robust enforcement of the Anti-Terrorism Act to disrupt Hamas’s financing, aligning with U.S. policy to count terrorism and bolster Israel’s defense against threats.

Considerations

The ruling aligns with U.S. policy to disrupt Hamas’s financial networks, complementing sanctions and reinforcing support for Israel’s security.
Lawsuits against companies for unknowingly aiding terrorism are common, with over 100 Anti-Terrorism Act cases filed since 2001, often targeting banks or charities.
U.S. defense contractors face limited litigation abroad for civilian casualties due to sovereign immunity and jurisdictional barriers, though cases in countries like Yemen have emerged (e.g., a 2019 lawsuit in the Netherlands against U.S. arms suppliers).
Growing U.S. protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza, with over 500 demonstrations in 2024, reflect societal tensions.
Short-term, the decision protects businesses from reopened lawsuits, but long-term, it may push terror victims to seek alternative legal or legislative remedies.