Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Supreme Court of the United States Twitter v. Taamneh (2023)

Yet, to this day, the basic “view of culpability” that animates the doctrine is straightforward: “ [A] person may be responsible for a crime he has not personally carried out if he helps another to complete its commission.” Rosemond v. United States, 572 U. S. 65, 70 (2014) .
Importantly, the concept of “helping” in the commission of a crime—or a tort—has never been boundless. That is because, if it were, aiding-and-abetting liability could sweep in innocent bystanders as well as those who gave only tangential assistance.
Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States Twitter v. Taamneh (2023)

To be sure, we cannot rule out the possibility that some set of allegations involving aid to a known terrorist group would justify holding a secondary defendant liable for all of the group’s actions or perhaps some definable subset of terrorist acts. There may be, for example, situations where the provider of routine services does so in an unusual way or provides such dangerous wares that selling those goods to a terrorist group could constitute aiding and abetting a foreseeable terror attack.
Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States Twitter v. Taamneh (2023)

The allegations before us today are a far cry from the facts of Halberstam. Rather than dealing with a serial burglar and his live-in partner-in-crime, we are faced with international terrorist networks and world-spanning internet platforms. By Halberstam’s own lights, its precise thre-eelement and six-factor test thus may not be entirely adequate to resolve these new facts. Ibid. And JASTA itself points only to Halberstam’s “framework,” not its facts or its exact phrasings and formulations, as the benchmark for aiding and abetting.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature