A recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed claims brought by victims of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing against the United States government. The court's decision affects those seeking payments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (USVSSTF), which compensates individuals who have obtained judgments against foreign state sponsors of terrorism. This ruling has significant implications for victims and their families who rely on these funds for support.
The case, known as Rusnak v. United States of America (Civil Action No. 2025-0292), was filed by Elvis Rusnak and others, who argued that the government unlawfully withheld payments owed to them from the USVSSTF. The plaintiffs claimed that this action violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the Mandamus Act. The court's ruling, issued on March 24, 2026, dismissed their claims, stating that the plaintiffs failed to meet jurisdictional requirements.
The USVSSTF was created to provide compensation to victims of terrorism, specifically those who have won judgments against foreign governments involved in terrorist activities. The fund is administered by a Special Master, who determines eligibility and payment amounts. However, the court noted that all decisions made by the Special Master regarding compensation are not subject to judicial review. This limitation has raised concerns among victims who feel that their claims are not being adequately addressed.
The plaintiffs in this case were among those affected by the Fairness for 9/11 Families Act, enacted in December 2022. This law aimed to provide lump-sum catch-up payments to victims of the 1983 Beirut barracks and 1996 Khobar Towers bombings, ensuring they received equal compensation as other terrorism victims. However, the plaintiffs argued that they were unfairly denied these payments due to a misinterpretation of the law by the government.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs contended that the government failed to properly account for their eligibility for these payments. They claimed that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had incorrectly stated that victims needed to submit new applications during a specific 180-day window to qualify for the catch-up payments. This interpretation left many eligible claimants, including the Rusnak plaintiffs, without compensation.
Judge Loren L. AliKhan presided over the case and ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs. The court found that the claims against the Acting Comptroller General and the Special Master were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court stated, "The plaintiffs have failed to allege ultra vires claims in their complaints," indicating that the plaintiffs did not adequately challenge the actions of the government officials involved.
In a detailed opinion, the court explained that dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are typically without prejudice. This means that the plaintiffs could potentially refile their claims in the future. However, the court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not meet the necessary legal standards to warrant reconsideration of the dismissal.
The impact of this ruling is significant for the plaintiffs and other victims of terrorism. Many individuals who have suffered due to terrorist acts depend on the USVSSTF for financial support. The court's decision may limit their ability to challenge the government's interpretation of eligibility for payments, leaving them in a precarious position.
This ruling may also set a precedent for future cases involving claims against the USVSSTF. As the court noted, the Special Master's decisions regarding compensation are not subject to judicial review, which raises questions about accountability and transparency in the administration of the fund. Victims and their advocates may need to seek legislative changes to ensure that their rights are protected in the future.
Looking ahead, the plaintiffs have the option to appeal the court's decision. However, the chances of success in an appeal may be limited given the court's clear ruling on jurisdictional issues. Additionally, there are no related cases currently pending that would directly impact this ruling.
In conclusion, the court's dismissal of the Rusnak case highlights the challenges faced by victims of terrorism in securing compensation from the USVSSTF. As the legal landscape evolves, it remains to be seen how this ruling will affect future claims and the broader conversation around victims' rights in the context of state-sponsored terrorism.