U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has never been so widespread. This paper examines the foundational role of the law in the modern American empire in the Middle East. To understand the role of law and policy in empire, I conduct a case study of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee cases (commonly known as LA8), brought by activists challenging the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Seven of the plaintiffs were Palestinian men, and one plaintiff was a Kenyan woman, a Palestine solidarity activist who was married to one of the more prominent plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were initially targeted by the government on the basis of their political activities challenging the U.S. role throughout the world, and specifically because of their alleged ties to various political organizations in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran. They responded with an offensive lawsuit, called the LA8 case. In this paper, I seek to evaluate the gendered construction of the Palestinian male activist by the law, highlighting the concomitant erasure of the Palestinian woman activist, and the interplay between the two dynamics. Why, when targeting a movement with a strong history of women leaders, did the state choose to exclude Palestinian women activists from its ambit of repression? Why was a Kenyan woman targeted instead? How did the role of prominent Palestinian women activists shift as a result of the lawsuit? I argue that much like the empire itself, this case lies at the intersections of gender, race, migration, and ideology as they travel between the U.S. and the Middle East, establishing that law and policy are critical vehicles in advancing empire. As part of the project to justify empire, the law participates in the construction of the Palestinian man as violent terrorist, even in the absence of any real evidence, while at the same time erasing the history of Palestinian women’s activism and involvement in the Palestinian struggle.