The Biden administration’s Department of Justice is backing immunity for UN employees accused of participating in a deadly terror attack, arguing in court that they cannot be sued—despite evidence of their involvement with Hamas.
The Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Justice has argued in federal court that employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) who allegedly participated in the October 7 terror attack are immune from lawsuits. This stance, presented in the Southern District of New York, comes in response to a lawsuit filed in June by relatives of victims of the attack, citing reports and UNRWA’s own admissions that some of the agency’s employees supported or even took part in the violence.
UNRWA has acknowledged that nine of its employees may have been involved in the attack, with one reportedly transporting the body of a murdered Israeli back to Gaza. The agency, which provides services to Palestinian refugees, has faced accusations of indoctrinating Palestinians and having ties to Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization.
Despite these allegations, UNRWA argued in court that its employees are protected under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which grants UN officials immunity from legal proceedings unless explicitly waived by the UN itself. The UN has not waived such immunity in this case.
The Department of Justice agreed with the agency’s position, stating in a filing that “since the U.N. has not waived immunity in this instance, its subsidiary, UNRWA, continues to enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution, and the lawsuit should be dismissed.” The DOJ further argued that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not establish a legal basis for claiming that the United Nations had waived its immunity, echoing the UN’s stance that the lawsuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Legal experts, such as Eugene Kontorovich and Rabbi Mark Goldfeder, have criticized the DOJ’s decision to support UNRWA’s immunity, arguing that the administration was not required to intervene and that this move represents a policy choice. They noted that while the U.S. has historically supported a broad interpretation of UN immunity, no UN agency has previously been so closely linked with a U.S.-designated terrorist group, nor had numerous employees accused of participating in mass atrocities.
The controversy surrounding UNRWA’s role and the DOJ’s support for its immunity is further complicated by the history of U.S. funding to the agency. Then-President Donald Trump cut funding to UNRWA in 2018, citing concerns over its ties to terrorism and misuse of aid. President Joe Biden restored this funding, including for previous years, upon taking office in 2021.
As the lawsuit proceeds, the implications of the DOJ’s stance and the administration's broader policy towards UNRWA are likely to draw intense scrutiny, raising questions about accountability and the limits of immunity in cases involving allegations of terrorism.
.png)