Executive Summary
- What’s new: In 2026, courts have issued numerous decisions developing the legal landscape under the U.S. Antiterrorism Act (ATA). At the same time, recent U.S. executive action (designating Latin American cartels as foreign terrorist organizations), geopolitical events (including the unfolding conflict in Iran) and regulatory activity abroad have the potential to shape the focus of future ATA lawsuits.
- Why it matters: Courts continue to refine the standard for proving aiding-and-abetting liability under the ATA; and geopolitical events may increasingly inform the types of ATA actions filed in the near future.
- What to do next: As the number of newly filed ATA actions may increase over the next several months, corporations with significant non-U.S. touchpoints should continue to monitor developments and assess potential ATA risk exposure.
__________
So far in 2026, plaintiffs have filed comparably fewer new actions under the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA),1 as amended by the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).2 But the coming months could bring a flurry of new lawsuits due to the impending deadline to seek relief under JASTA for injuries that occurred prior to September 2016. At the same time, previously filed ATA cases have continued to advance, with courts issuing a number of important decisions so far this year.
I. New Lawsuits
JASTA permits plaintiffs to bring secondary liability claims (i.e., for aiding and abetting or conspiracy) for injuries suffered as far back as September 11, 2001.3 As interpreted by some courts, JASTA’s ten-year limitations period for claims based on injuries that occurred prior to its enactment (including claims that accrued as long ago as 2001) will expire in September 2026.4 This upcoming deadline to file suits stemming from terrorist attacks perpetrated between September 2001 and September 2016 could spur the commencement of an unusually high number of ATA lawsuits over the next four months.5
Of the new actions filed so far in 2026, two stand out:
Nahadi v. British American Tobacco P.L.C. (E.D. Va.).6 In January 2026, the victims of two missile attacks perpetrated by Iranian terrorist groups in Iraq filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia seeking to hold British American Tobacco Company (and its Singaporean subsidiary) liable for aiding and abetting those attacks. Drawing on facts uncovered during a U.S. government investigation of the defendants, the plaintiffs allege that from 2007 to 2017, the defendants operated an illicit cigarette manufacturing venture with a North Korean state-owned company also known to participate in arms trafficking. The plaintiffs allege that profits from the venture were used to fund the delivery of weapons to terrorist groups (including weapons used to perpetrate the injury-causing attacks).
Nahadi stands as the latest example of civil litigation under the ATA following a corporation’s entry into negotiated resolutions with the U.S. government concerning potential links to terrorist groups or other sanctioned entities. The action also raises interesting questions regarding personal jurisdiction and venue (given that the complaint does not allege direct connections with Virginia) and nexus (given the apparent multiple layers of separation between defendants’ alleged conduct and the direct attacks).
Golden Adventure Shipping Corp. v. Iran (D.D.C.).7 In April 2026, a U.S.-based shipping corporation (and its sole shareholder, a U.S. citizen) filed a suit against Iran and other defendants, including a series of Chinese banks, arising from missile attacks by Yemeni Houthi rebels that damaged the corporation’s cargo ship while it traveled through international waters. The plaintiffs assert that the attack stemmed from a “safe passage” scheme designed to protect Chinese maritime commerce in the region; their claims include ATA primary liability (against Iran as the “state sponsor” of the Houthis’ attacks) and secondary liability (including against the Chinese banking defendants for knowingly providing dollar-clearing and other financial services through their U.S. commercial banking operations, which ultimately funded Houthi activities).
Golden Adventure is one of the first actions to advance ATA secondary liability claims against Chinese corporate defendants. It is also unique because the claims are predicated entirely on injury to a U.S. national’s business and property — an approach that, if followed, could open the door to additional types of ATA suits not involving personal injury or death.
II. Notable Developments
In addition to newly launched ATA actions, the first few months of 2026 have brought other developments expected to meaningfully impact ATA claims going forward:
Atchley v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd. (D.C. Cir.).8 The D.C. Circuit’s long-awaited decision in Atchley marked its first substantive application of the aiding-and-abetting standard set forth in the Supreme Court’s 2023 opinion in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.9 Atchley revived an ATA complaint brought against medical supply and manufacturing companies alleging that those companies are liable for providing funds and medical supplies to the Iraqi Ministry of Health, an entity that the plaintiffs allege was controlled by terrorist organizations, for business reasons.
Analyzing Twitter’s approach to the “knowing and substantial assistance” prong — often the primary battleground for aiding-and-abetting claims under the ATA — the court evaluated twin pillars of “culpability” (whether the defendant’s alleged assistance was knowing and substantial) and “nexus” (the connection between the conduct and the injury-causing attack).10 The court emphasized that an examination of the nexus informs the level of culpability necessary to state a claim: “[T]he degree of connection between the culpable assistance and the tortious act sets the bar for how strong the indicia of culpability need be.”11
Against this backdrop, the court concluded that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled an aiding-and-abetting claim. Atchley offers an interesting comparison to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s 2025 decision in Ashley v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft.12 In Ashley, the Second Circuit similarly reexamined its existing ATA jurisprudence in the face of Twitter; unlike in Atchley, the Ashley court affirmed the dismissal of an ATA action for failure to sufficiently allege the defendants’ knowing and substantial assistance. While factual differences largely drove the divergent rulings, the courts’ interpretations of Twitter revealed subtle differences. For example, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Atchley separated its “nexus” analysis from the “knowing and substantial assistance” inquiry, placing the two on equal footing. The D.C. Circuit’s willingness to credit allegations of fairly generalized assistance, at least when the assistance and the attacks occurred in the same geographic area and time period, could also signal a greater receptiveness to claims lacking a more direct connection between the defendants’ conduct and the injury-causing attacks.
The Atchley defendants could still petition the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision. More broadly (and assuming the Supreme Court does not review the decision), time will tell whether meaningful daylight exists between the ATA jurisprudence of these circuits (and others), and whether future plaintiffs view D.C. courts as comparatively friendly to ATA claims.
ATA actions involving cryptocurrency. The prominent cryptocurrency exchange Binance (and certain individual defendants) has been named as a defendant in actions broadly alleging that Binance aided and abetted various terrorist attacks (including the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel) by facilitating cryptocurrency transactions associated with those groups.13 Binance has achieved a number of recent legal victories, however, casting doubt on the viability of these actions.
In Troell v. Binance Holdings Ltd., for instance, Binance recently secured the dismissal of an action in the Southern District of New York asserting both primary and secondary liability claims.14 The district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to state an aiding-and-abetting claim because they could not “establish a definable nexus” between the defendants’ alleged conduct and any of the specific terrorist attacks at issue.15 Although the court has permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, their ultimate ability to cure these deficiencies is uncertain.
Shortly thereafter, Binance secured the dismissal of a related action brought in the Middle District of Alabama on the ground that the complaint constituted an impermissible “shotgun pleading” that contained conclusory allegations and failed to sufficiently distinguish between factual or legal allegations.16 In yet another case pending in the Southern District of New York, the court has permitted Binance and the other defendants to renew their motions to dismiss in the aftermath of the Second Circuit’s recent Ashley decision.17
Executive action. Recent media reports suggest that U.S. executive action could further extend the ATA’s reach. The Trump administration made waves in 2025 when it designated several Central American and South American drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), expanding ATA risks for companies operating in those regions.18 This trend could continue, particularly given recent reports that the Trump administration was weighing whether to designate Brazil’s two largest drug organizations as FTOs.19
Operation Epic Fury. On February 28, 2026, the United States commenced Operation Epic Fury, coordinated military action against Iran and certain of its regional allies.20 Tensions with Iran remain high, including given subsequent efforts by Iran to limit passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route. Iran has long played a prominent role in ATA litigation; the United States has designated Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism since 1984,21 and Iran is commonly named as a defendant in ATA actions (or alleged to have participated in or funded the terrorist activity from which actions against corporations arise). Given this background, victims of attacks carried out by Iran or its allies as part of the conflict might bring ATA claims in the future.
Existence of related criminal proceedings. Especially because of the ATA’s uniquely extraterritorial nature, ATA litigation often arises from, or runs parallel to, investigatory or enforcement actions taken by both the United States and foreign governments in connection with the associated underlying conduct. For example, one of the bank defendants in Ashley reached settlements with the Department of Justice (in 2022) and French criminal authorities (in 2024) in connection with broader conduct underpinning the plaintiffs’ allegations in that action.22 More recently, in April 2026, a French court convicted a global building-materials manufacturer, as well as certain former executives and third-party intermediaries, on terrorism-financing and sanctions violation charges relating to the company’s historical operations in Syria.23 Both of these sets of investigations contributed to civil actions under the ATA, serving as a reminder of the relationship between regulatory activity abroad and U.S. civil litigation under the ATA.
_______________
1 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331–2339D.
2 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, Pub. L. No. 114-222, 130 Stat. 852, 855 (2016); see also 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2).
3 JASTA § 7.
4 See, e.g., Moses v. BNP Paribas, S.A., 802 F. Supp. 3d 567, 579–81 (S.D.N.Y. 2025); see also 18 U.S.C. § 2335(a).
5 See also our January 21, 2026, client alert “Litigation Under the Antiterrorism Act: 2025 Year in Review.”
6 Nahadi v. Brit. Am. Tobacco P.L.C., No. 1:26-cv-00274 (E.D.Va. filed Jan. 29, 2026).
7 Golden Adventure Shipping Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 1:26-cv-01103 (D.D.C. filed Apr. 1, 2026).
8 Atchley v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 165 F.4th 592, 603 (D.C. Cir. 2026), reh’g en banc denied, No. 20-7077 (Apr. 23, 2026); see also our January 21, 2026, client alert.
9 598 U.S. 471 (2023); see also our January 21, 2026, client alert.
10 See Atchley, 165 F.4th at 603.
11 Id. at 604–05.
12 144 F.4th 420 (2d Cir. 2025); see also our January 21, 2026, client alert.
13 See our January 21, 2026, client alert.
14 Troell v. Binance Holdings Ltd., No. 24-CV-7136 (JAV), 2026 WL 636849 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2026).
15 Id. at *16; see also id. at *17–22. The court also dismissed conspiracy and primary liability claims for similar reasons. See id. at *22–25.
16 See Order, Newman v. BAM Trading Servs., Inc , No. 2:24-cv-00134-ECM-CWB (M.D. Ala. filed Mar. 11, 2026), ECF No. 127. Although the plaintiffs amended their complaint, the defendant will have the opportunity to again pursue dismissal.
17 See Raanan v. Binance Holdings Ltd., No. 1:24-cv-00697-JGK-BCM (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 28, 2026), ECF No. 109.
18 See our January 21, 2026, client alert.
19 See Ana Ionova and Edward Wong, U.S. May Label Brazilian Gangs as Terror Groups, After Push by the Bolsonaros, New York Times (Mar. 28, 2026).
20 See Operation Epic Fury Updates, U.S. Central Command (last visited May 14, 2026).
21 State Sponsors of Terrorism, U.S. Dept. of State (last visited May 14, 2026).
22 See Danske Bank Pleads Guilty to Fraud on U.S. Banks in Multi-Billion Dollar Scheme to Access the U.S. Financial System, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Dec. 13, 2022); Danske’s France Settlement Ends Final Probe Over Suspected Money Laundering, Reuters (Sept. 18, 2024).
23 Lily Radziemski, French Cement Giant Found Guilty in Landmark Terrorist Financing Case, Courthouse News (Apr. 13, 2026); Lafarge CEO and Seven Others Convicted and Sentenced in French Court for Financing Terrorism, N.Y. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (Apr. 30, 2026).
This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered advertising under applicable state laws.