New York Appeals Court Weighs Whether 9/11 Families' Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Can Proceed to Trial

A federal appeals court in New York on Wednesday heard competing arguments over whether a long-running civil lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims against Saudi Arabia should be allowed to advance to a full trial, in a case that could reshape the boundaries of sovereign immunity for foreign governments accused of involvement in terrorism.

The hearing before the Court of Appeals centered on whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can be stripped of its legal immunity from prosecution in US courts, a protection that foreign states have historically enjoyed and that the families have spent more than two decades trying to overcome.

Nearly 3,000 people died on 11 September 2001 when hijackers commandeered four commercial passenger jets and flew them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon outside Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania, where passengers fought back against their captors before the plane went down.

The families allege that Omar al-Bayoumi, a man who was employed by the Saudi government at the time, knowingly provided support to two of the hijackers and that he was operating as part of a broader network of officials tied to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Bayoumi, who has since retired from government service, has denied any knowledge that the two men were hijackers or that he played any role in the attacks. Saudi Arabia has likewise stated that any suggestion it or its officials were complicit in 9/11 is categorically false.

The Kingdom's central legal argument rests on the principle of foreign sovereign immunity, which generally shields foreign states from being sued in US courts. The families first filed their lawsuit in 2002 but spent years pressing members of Congress to change the law so that their claim could move forward.

That effort succeeded in 2016, when Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA, which creates an exception allowing civil claims to be brought against a foreign state or official for death, injury, or damages resulting from an act of international terrorism. The legislation represented a significant shift in US law and gave victims of terrorism a new avenue to pursue accountability in American courts.

Applying that statute, the Manhattan District Court ruled in August 2025 that the families had presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the terms of JASTA, clearing the way for the case to move toward trial. Saudi Arabia returned to court on Wednesday asking the Court of Appeals to overturn that ruling and restore its immunity.

Gregory Rapawy, counsel for the Kingdom, told the panel that core factual questions had not yet been resolved and that they needed to be settled before Saudi Arabia could lose its immunity. Among the most important of those unresolved issues, he said, was the fundamental question of what exactly the nature of Bayoumi's employment by the Saudi state had been at the relevant time. Without firm findings on such matters, he argued, the country should not be exposed to litigation.

Gavin Simpson, an attorney for the 9/11 families, countered that the lower court had already determined that Bayoumi's conduct went well beyond that of an ordinary bystander. "He was, in fact, following Saudi Arabia's instructions when assisting the hijackers," Simpson told the judges, adding that the Kingdom had failed to rebut those conclusions. He rejected the characterization of Bayoumi as a mere good Samaritan or an innocent participant in the events surrounding the attacks.

The judges appeared to be grappling with a procedural middle path. One option discussed was the possibility of sending the case back to the district court so that it could make more detailed and concrete factual findings, a process that could involve hearing live testimony from witnesses. The appeals panel did not indicate which direction it was leaning.

Judge Guido Calabresi pressed Rapawy on which witnesses Saudi Arabia might call if the matter were returned to the lower court. Rapawy responded that if the dispute ultimately hinged on Bayoumi's credibility, "we would have to see" whether he could be brought in to testify, leaving open the question of whether the retired official would take the stand.

As the session concluded, Judge William Nardini acknowledged the complexity of the dispute, describing it as "a difficult case" and stating that the panel would take it under advisement. That means the judges will issue their ruling at a later date, with the timing uncertain.

Outside the courthouse, Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in the World Trade Center, told the BBC she came away from the proceedings feeling encouraged. She said the passage of a quarter-century without accountability or justice for the murder of a loved one was extraordinary, and expressed hope that the appeals court would uphold the decision issued by District Court Judge Daniels and allow the matter to proceed to trial.

The outcome of the appeal carries significance well beyond this single dispute. A ruling allowing the case to go forward could expand how courts interpret JASTA and affect how foreign governments are treated when they face accusations of supporting terrorism. A decision in Saudi Arabia's favor, by contrast, would reinforce sovereign immunity protections and could make similar claims against other states considerably harder to bring.

For the families, the hearing marked the latest chapter in a legal battle that has stretched across more than two decades, survived congressional action, and now rests with a three-judge panel whose decision could determine whether they finally get the opportunity to present their evidence before a jury.