yoga-mahendra
The families of people killed in the September 11 attacks have taken another step in a legal battle that has now lasted more than two decades, as a federal appeals court in New York heard competing arguments over whether their lawsuit against Saudi Arabia can finally proceed to trial. Lawyers for the families and representatives of the Saudi government each presented their case to the Court of Appeals, which is deciding the future of one of the longest-running and most closely watched terror-related civil actions in the United States.
At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether a foreign sovereign state can be held responsible in an American courtroom for the actions of its employees in connection with the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil. Almost 3,000 people died on 11 September 2001 when militants seized four US passenger aircraft and flew them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon near Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania, where passengers fought back against the hijackers before the plane went down.
The families contend that Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi government employee, deliberately helped two of the hijackers and did so as part of a broader network of figures connected to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Photographs placed in the court record show Bayoumi in February 2000, when he was still working for the Saudi state. He has since retired from government service and has consistently rejected the accusations, insisting he never knew the two men were involved in a terrorist plot and had no role whatsoever in the events of 9/11.
Saudi Arabia has denied any wrongdoing in the strongest possible terms, describing claims that it or its officials bore responsibility for the attacks as categorically false. Beyond denying the allegations, the kingdom has advanced a legal argument that could end the case entirely: as a foreign sovereign state, it enjoys immunity from prosecution in US courts, and no amount of public argument should be permitted to strip that protection away.
The families first filed their suit in 2002, in the years immediately following the attacks, when the legal pathways for pursuing such claims were extremely limited. Recognising that existing law would likely block them, they spent several years lobbying members of Congress to change the rules. Their efforts eventually succeeded in 2016, when lawmakers passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA, which permits civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death or damage arising from an act of international terrorism.
That legislative change transformed the prospects of the litigation. In August 2025, the Manhattan District Court ruled that the families had put forward sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of JASTA, clearing the way for the case to move toward a trial. The decision was a significant milestone, but it was never the end of the matter. On Wednesday, Saudi Arabia asked the Court of Appeals to overturn that ruling and restore the immunity shield.
Gregory Rapawy, counsel for Saudi Arabia, told the panel that fundamental questions of fact remain unresolved, including what he described as the central issue of the nature of Bayoumi's employment by the Saudi state. Rapawy argued that these matters must be settled by a court before the country can be stripped of its sovereign immunity, suggesting that allowing the case to advance now would be premature and procedurally improper.
Gavin Simpson, representing the families, pushed back firmly. He said the District Court had already concluded that Bayoumi's conduct went well beyond that of a good Samaritan or an uninvolved bystander, and that he was in fact acting on Saudi Arabia's instructions when he assisted the hijackers. Those findings, Simpson argued, are ones the kingdom has failed to rebut, and reopening them would effectively reward delay.
The exchange highlighted the central tension before the appeals panel: whether the matter is ready for a full trial or requires further fact-finding first. One option the judges appeared to wrestle with was remanding the case to the district court for more concrete findings, a process that could involve hearing testimony from live witnesses and building a fuller evidentiary record before any trial begins.
Judge Guido Calabresi questioned what witnesses Saudi Arabia might call if the case were sent back. Rapawy responded cautiously, saying that if the outcome ultimately turned on Bayoumi's credibility, "we would have to see" whether he could be summoned to testify — an acknowledgement that the retired official's own account could prove decisive.
As the session concluded, Judge William Nardini acknowledged the complexity of the dispute, saying "it's a difficult case, and we will take it under advisement." That phrasing means the panel has finished hearing argument and will issue its ruling at a later date, leaving the families and the kingdom waiting once again for clarity.
Outside the courthouse, Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in the World Trade Center, told the BBC she felt optimistic about how the hearing had gone. "25 years is an extraordinary time to go without accountability and justice for the murder of your loved one," she said, adding that the families hope the judges will uphold the District Court's decision and allow a trial to proceed.
Whatever the panel decides, the outcome will carry implications well beyond this case. A ruling permitting the trial to move forward would open a significant avenue for terror victims' families to pursue foreign governments in US courts, while a decision in Saudi Arabia's favour could narrow the reach of JASTA and reinforce the protections of sovereign immunity. For the families, after nearly a quarter of a century of litigation, lobbying and waiting, the appeals court's eventual decision represents the latest — and potentially most consequential — chapter in their search for their day in court.
Comments (0)