What’s Next for Saudi Terrorism Bill?

Congress approved the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) on Friday, opening up the possibility of terrorism lawsuits in U.S. civil courts against Saudi Arabia. The bill also limits sovereign immunity for other governments not designated by the State Department as State Sponsors of Terrorism.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, if not before, Saudi Arabia has been accused of financing and fomenting Sunni terrorism in the Middle East. But it is unclear how the bill, if it becomes law, would work in practice. The Senate inserted an exception before passing it in May that could stall legal proceedings indefinitely. The Senate version was passed today in the House, declaring that the attorney general can intervene and request a stay from any judge hearing such a case, provided the secretary of state certifies the U.S. is engaged in “good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant” on resolving terrorism claims against it.

Such a stay would last 180 days but can be renewed indefinitely if the State Department issues additional certification and the Justice Department petitions the court again. Judicial authorities are traditionally deferential to the executive branch on national security, meaning that such requests would likely receive weighty consideration.

Regardless, the bill’s passage is going to cause worries for Saudi decision-makers and add tension to bilateral relations. Saudi officials will likely threaten (as they did in March) to withdraw the roughly $750 billion in assets their government holds in U.S. territory, both as a means of exerting pressure on the administration and out of fear that assets could be frozen during a trial.

Opponents of the bill argue that it would expose U.S. companies and citizens, including service members and diplomats, to specious retaliatory lawsuits overseas. Supporters counter that having such legislation on the books is an important tool for deterring governments around the world from colluding with terrorists.

The bill passed unanimously by voice vote in both chambers. It is now up to the president to deliberate and to decide whether to deliver on his administration’s threat of a veto. It is likely that Congress will be able to sustain the two-thirds vote required to override the president’s veto. The legislation has bipartisan proponents and leaders from both parties who predicted that Congress would stand firm.

Once the legislation is sent to the president’s desk, the 10-day clock (excluding Sundays) begins. If the 10-day period expires without a veto or signature, the bill becomes law. If, however, Congress adjourns during this period, the president will be able to pocket veto the legislation, meaning that the bill would fail without giving Congress a chance to weigh in.

If the president follows through on his veto threat, and Congress backs up its talk of overriding it, this would be the first such occurrence during Obama’s nearly 8 years in office. If he does not veto the bill, it could mark a new era of strained bilateral ties, adding to the crisis in confidence over Washington’s handling of the Iran nuclear deal and the Syrian civil war.

Boris Zilberman is deputy director of congressional relations at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where David Andrew Weinberg is a senior fellow. Follow Boris and David on Twitter @rolltidebmz and @DavidAWeinberg.