New York Appeals Court Weighs Whether 9/11 Families' Case Against Saudi Arabia Can Reach Trial

Nearly a quarter of a century after the September 11 attacks, a federal appeals court in New York has heard competing arguments over whether thousands of families can finally take their long-running lawsuit against Saudi Arabia before a jury. The Court of Appeals panel heard submissions from lawyers representing the victims' relatives and from counsel for the Saudi government, which is seeking to have a lower court's decision overturned before the case can proceed to trial.

The case stems from the attacks of 11 September 2001, when hijackers seized four US passenger jets and flew them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania, where passengers fought back against the attackers. Almost 3,000 people were killed in the assaults, making them the deadliest terrorist incident on American soil and an event that reshaped US foreign policy, security, and civil liberties for a generation.

At the centre of the families' allegations is Omar al-Bayoumi, a former Saudi government employee. The relatives claim that Bayoumi knowingly assisted two of the hijackers and that he operated as part of a broader network of officials connected to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Bayoumi, who has since retired from government service, has denied knowing that the two men were hijackers or having any involvement in the attacks. Saudi Arabia has consistently maintained that any suggestion it or its officials bore responsibility for 9/11 is categorically false.

Saudi Arabia's primary legal defence rests on the principle of sovereign immunity. As a foreign state, Riyadh argues that it cannot be hauled before US courts and held liable. The families have spent years battling that position, including a sustained lobbying effort in Washington to change the law itself. Their efforts bore fruit in 2016, when Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA. The legislation permits civil claims against a foreign state or its officials for injuries, death, or damages arising from an act of international terrorism.

The families first filed their lawsuit in 2002, meaning the legal battle has now dragged on for more than two decades. Progress came in August 2025, when the Manhattan District Court ruled that the relatives had produced sufficient evidence to satisfy the terms of JASTA. That decision allowed the case to move forward towards a trial, a milestone that appeared to open the door to the accountability many families have sought for years.

However, Saudi Arabia returned to court on Wednesday asking the Court of Appeals to reverse that ruling. Gregory Rapawy, counsel for the Kingdom, told the judges that fundamental questions of fact remained unresolved. Among them, he said, was the central issue of the precise nature of Bayoumi's employment by the Saudi state. Rapawy argued that such core factual matters needed to be settled before the country could be stripped of its immunity, suggesting the lower court had moved too quickly.

Representing the 9/11 families, lawyer Gavin Simpson pushed back firmly. He argued that the District Court had already found that Bayoumi's conduct could not be dismissed as the actions of a well-meaning bystander or an unwitting participant. Bayoumi, Simpson asserted, had been following Saudi Arabia's instructions when he assisted the hijackers, and he contended that the Saudi side had failed to rebut those findings. The exchange underscored the sharply divergent narratives that have defined the litigation.

The hearing appeared to turn on a procedural question that could determine the case's next chapter. One option the judges seemed to wrestle with was whether to send the matter back to the district court so that more concrete findings could be made, a process that could involve hearing testimony from live witnesses. Such a move would extend the timeline further but might strengthen the factual record on which any eventual trial would rest.

Judge Guido Calabresi pressed Rapawy on which witnesses Saudi Arabia might call if the case were returned to the district court. The lawyer's response was notably cautious: if the dispute ultimately hinged on Bayoumi's credibility, Rapawy said, "we would have to see" whether he could be summoned to testify. The answer highlighted how much the litigation has come to revolve around one man's knowledge and motives.

As the hearing concluded, Judge William Nardini acknowledged the weight of the matter. "It's a difficult case, and we will take it under advisement," he said, indicating that the panel would issue its ruling at a later date. The decision will be watched closely not only by the families but by legal scholars and governments, as its reasoning could shape the boundaries of sovereign immunity in terrorism-related litigation for years to come.

Outside the courthouse, the human dimension of the protracted legal fight was on full display. Terry Strada, whose husband Tom died in the World Trade Center, told the BBC that she felt optimistic after the hearing. "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 hoped the judges would uphold District Court Judge Daniels' decision and allow the case to reach a trial.

Legal experts note that the outcome carries implications well beyond this single case. If the appeals court allows the litigation to proceed, it could encourage other plaintiffs affected by acts of international terrorism to pursue foreign states in US courts. Conversely, a ruling in Saudi Arabia's favour would reinforce the Shield of sovereign immunity and likely end the families' hopes of a courtroom reckoning.

For the relatives of the nearly 3,000 victims, the delay itself has become part of the story. Many have watched years of investigations, congressional battles, and court hearings pass without ever hearing evidence tested before a jury. Whatever the panel decides, their expectation remains the same: that after more than two decades, the courts will at last give them their day in court.