August 19, 2025 | Case Update
Late in the day this past Friday, the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia ordered the dismissal of all claims against AMP – and two of its officers – under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The Court granted the motions our attorneys filed on behalf of these clients, agreeing that the plaintiffs failed to connect AMP or its officers to any of the actions that caused these plaintiffs harm.
The plaintiffs, multiple individuals in the United States and Israel who allege they either suffered or have people close to them who suffered harm as a result of the attacks of October 7, 2023, asked the Court to hold AMP, its officers and several other entities and individuals in the United States responsible for the alleged actions by Hamas that they claimed led to their harm. Filed a little over a year ago, the case attempts to blame AMP and others for Hamas’ purported actions overseas despite AMP’s status as a purely domestic entity, that operates only in the United States. The plaintiffs characterized AMP and others as a “propoganda arm” in the U.S. for Hamas, based solely on the fact that AMP educates the American public about the rich history and culture of Palestine, and promotes Palestinian awareness within the United States nationwide. Their lawsuit, spearheaded by attorneys for an advocacy organization that made nearly identical claims against other defendants in a separate lawsuit brought by the same plaintiffs, shows an attempt to quash free speech and advocacy rights within the United States because those bringing the lawsuits disagree with the viewpoints.
The court agreed with our attorneys and dismissed all claims. And, the court “cautions that some of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendants’ ‘public relations’ campaign raise issues regarding the constitutional protections applicable to” free speech. Importantly, the court also acknowledged that “[t]hese ‘public relations’ allegations are vague and conclusory and cannot satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden here.”
We agree!
“The court rightly saw through this attack on free speech rights protected by our Constitution. These plaintiffs may well have been harmed, but not by AMP, and not by its legally protected speech in the United States or on behalf of Palestinians in America. This attempt and others like it by those who orchestrated multiple lawsuits across the country, to use real pain as a vehicle to stop legal speech, contradicts the intent Congress made clear when it passed these statutes and contradict the expressed intent of our country’s founders. Legally protected speech represents a key part of what makes our country unique and worth protecting. These misdirected attempts to minimize that right weaken our country and—if the court had allowed it—weaken our judicial system. Fortunately, the courts know better and apply the law as intended and as written.”
– MLFA Civil Litigation Department Head, Christina Jump
