Key facts
- Families of 9/11 victims are suing Saudi Arabia, alleging a government employee aided hijackers.
- Saudi Arabia claims sovereign immunity and denies complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
- A 2016 law, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), allows such civil claims.
- A Manhattan District Court ruled in August 2025 that the families had presented enough evidence to proceed.
- Saudi Arabia's counsel argued that core issues of fact, including the employee's employment, remain undecided.
- The appeals court judges will issue a ruling at a future date.
The Court of Appeals in New York heard arguments on Wednesday in a lawsuit brought by families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks against Saudi Arabia. The families allege that Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi government employee at the time, knowingly assisted two of the hijackers and was connected to a network within the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Saudi Arabia denies any complicity in the attacks and asserts sovereign immunity, arguing it cannot be prosecuted in US courts.
The lawsuit, first filed in 2002, was allowed to move towards a trial after Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) in 2016, which permits civil claims against foreign states for acts of international terrorism. A Manhattan District Court ruled in August 2025 that the families had provided sufficient evidence to meet JASTA's terms.
During Wednesday's hearing, Saudi Arabia's counsel, Gregory Rapawy, argued that fundamental questions of fact, such as the nature of al-Bayoumi's employment, had not been resolved and were necessary before the country could be stripped of its immunity. Conversely, the families' lawyer, Gavin Simpson, contended that the District Court had already determined al-Bayoumi's actions were not those of an innocent bystander and that he was acting on Saudi Arabia's instructions, points Saudi Arabia had failed to refute.
The judges appeared to consider sending the case back to the district court for further factual findings, which could include hearing testimony from witnesses. Judge William Nardini acknowledged the case's difficulty and stated the panel would take the arguments under advisement before issuing a ruling.