New York court hears arguments in ongoing 9/11 families' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia
The families allege that men with links to the Saudi government helped those who carried out the 2001 attacks, something the country denies.
New York court hears arguments in ongoing 9/11 families' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia
The Court of Appeals in New York heard submissions from lawyers representing families of 9/11 victims and from the government of Saudi Arabia as it considers whether the families’ long-running case against the Middle Eastern country can advance to trial.
Nearly 3,000 people were killed on 11 September 2001 after hijackers took control of four US passenger jets and flew them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, after passengers resisted.
The families claim that a Saudi government employee, Omar al-Bayoumi, knowingly aided two of the hijackers and was operating with a network of officials connected to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs.
Thousands of people were killed on 11 September 2001 after hijackers seized US passenger jets and crashed them into two New York skyscrapers
Bayoumi, who is now retired from government service, has denied knowing the two men were hijackers or having any role in 9/11, while Saudi Arabia has said any claim that it or its officials were involved in 9/11 is categorically false.
The Kingdom has argued that, as a foreign sovereign state, it is immune from prosecution in US courts.
The families, who filed the lawsuit in 2002, spent years lobbying US Congress to amend foreign sovereign immunity law so the case could proceed.
In 2016, Congress enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which permits civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death, or damages arising from an act of international terrorism.
In August 2025, the Manhattan District Court ruled that the 9/11 families had provided enough evidence to satisfy the act’s requirements and allowed the case to move toward trial.
On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia asked the Court of Appeals to overturn that ruling.
Counsel Gregory Rapawy said key factual questions — including the central issue of the nature of Bayoumi’s employment by the Saudi state — had not been resolved and needed to be settled before the country could lose its immunity.
Lawyer for the 9/11 families Gavin Simpson argued that the District Court had already determined Bayoumi’s actions "were not just acts of a good Samaritan or an innocent participant".
"He was, in fact, following Saudi Arabia's instructions when assisting the hijackers," said Simpson, adding that Saudi Arabia had "failed to rebut" those points.
One issue the judges appeared to be weighing was whether to send the case back to the district court for more specific findings, which could include hearing testimony from live witnesses.
When Judge Guido Calabresi asked which witnesses Saudi Arabia could call in that situation, Rapawy said that if the matter ultimately depended on Bayoumi’s credibility, "we would have to see" whether he could be called to testify.
As he ended the hearing, Judge William Nardini said "it's a difficult case, and we will take it under advisement", indicating that the panel will issue a decision at a later date.
Outside the courthouse, Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in the World Trade Center, told the BBC she felt encouraged by the hearing.
"25 years is an extraordinary time to go without accountability and justice for the murder of your loved one. What we hope is that the judges will uphold [District Court] Judge Daniels' decision and move to a trial."