In brief
In a landmark hearing, New York’s Court of Appeals considered arguments from 9/11 victim families and Saudi officials as it weighs the possibility of moving the lawsuit to trial. The case, filed in 2002, alleges that a Saudi government employee aided two hijackers and has long relied on the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act to overturn sovereign immunity. After a district court ruled the case could proceed in August 2025, Saudi Arabia sought to reverse the decision. The court will decide in the coming weeks whether to return the case for further fact‑finding or to uphold the prior ruling. Families hope the decision will bring accountability after 25 years of waiting for justice.
The New York Court of Appeals has heard arguments from the 9/11 victim families and the Saudi government as it decides whether the lawsuit can go to trial.
On 11 September 2001, nearly 3,000 people lost their lives when hijackers commandeered four U.S. passenger planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
The families allege that a Saudi government employee, Omar al‑Bayoumi, knowingly supported two of the hijackers and was connected to officials linked to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs.
Al‑Bayoumi, now retired, denies knowing the men were hijackers or that he had any role in 9/11. Saudi Arabia insists that any claim of complicity is “categorically false.”
The kingdom argues that as a foreign sovereign it enjoys immunity from U.S. prosecutions.
The families sued in 2002 and lobbied Congress until 2016, when the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) changed the foreign‑sovereign‑immunity rule to allow civil claims for terrorism victims.
In August 2025, the Manhattan District Court ruled that the 9/11 families had provided enough evidence under JASTA to move the case toward trial. Saudi Arabia now requests the Court of Appeals to reverse that ruling.
Counsel Gregory Rapawy argued that core facts – especially about al‑Bayoumi’s employment with the Saudi state – had not yet been decided and must be resolved before stripping sovereign immunity. 9/11 families’ lawyer Gavin Simpson countered that the district court found al‑Bayoumi’s actions were “not just acts of a good Samaritan or an innocent participant.”
Judge William Nardini said the case is “difficult” and will be taken under advisement, with a decision pending. 25‑year‑old court opinions and testimony are still pending; the court may send the case back to district court for more concrete findings, potentially calling live witnesses.
Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in the World Trade Center, told the press she “feels positive” about the hearing and hopes the judges uphold the district court’s decision and move the case to trial.
