The New York Court of Appeals has heard arguments from both sides of a case that could see 9/11 families bring Saudi Arabia to trial for its alleged role in the 2001 attacks. The lawsuit, first filed in 2002, claims that a Saudi government employee, Omar al‑Bayoumi, knowingly supported two hijackers and worked for officials tied to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs.
A Manhattan district judge approved the case in August 2025 under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which allows civil claims against foreign states for terrorism. Saudi Arabia now asks the appeals court to reverse the decision, arguing its diplomatic immunity protects it from U.S. prosecution.
Lawyers for the families contend that the district court’s findings are sufficient and that Bayoumi’s actions show Saudi instructions, not a “good Samaritan” stance. The Saudi side insists that no credible evidence exists linking the employee to the hijackers or to Saudi intelligence.
The panel’s chief judge, William Nardini, noted the case’s difficulty and said a ruling would follow after the court fully deliberates. If the court rejects Saudi Arabia’s argument, the families could move toward a trial that would formally confront the nation’s alleged involvement.
Terry Strada, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center, expressed cautious optimism, hoping the court will uphold the district judge’s decision and finally deliver accountability after nearly a quarter‑century of silence.
The outcome could set a precedent for future cases where U.S. victims seek justice against foreign actors, redefining the balance between sovereign immunity and victims’ rights.
