"Nothing reflects submission of the antecedent sovereign authority of the U.S. The U.S. can't say to Palestine do or don't make that payment. That is not submission to a U.S. forum, and indeed, that's what the court of appeals said and has applied in this case," Berger said. "All of our conduct is unrelated conduct and has previously been held to be insufficient to support jurisdiction."    Edwin Kneedler, representing the U.S. government through the U.S. Solicitor General's office, said Congress passed the law because it believed deeming the PLO and Palestinian Authority to have consented to jurisdiction in federal courts was the best way to prevent terrorism. He argued that determination should take precedence.   "Congress has the constitutional authority and institutional capacity to weigh the varying interests, including the distinct status and international engagements of PLO and PA, the United States' unique and long-term relationship with those entities, the imperatives of national security and in foreign policy and fairness to claimants and foreign defendants," Kneedler said.   Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, "Courts shouldn't be coming in, I don't think, without that and saying, gee, what Congress and the president are doing here to advance the national security and for policy interests of the United States strikes us from our perch as unfair."    Berger said, "The legislative wheel alone can't define Fifth Amendment due processes."  

The justices appeared unsure about how far they should go in terms of ruling on this case, questioning both sides on whether a more limited decision, that would then send the case back to the lower courts, would suffice.