The New York Court of Appeals has heard arguments from both sides in the long‑standing lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, deciding whether the case can go to trial.
The case centers on claims that Saudi government employee Omar al‑Bayoumi knowingly assisted two of the hijackers and worked with a network linked to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. The families say the employee knowingly aided terrorists, while the Kingdom denies any complicity and cites sovereign immunity.
In 2016 the U.S. Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), allowing civil claims against foreign states for terrorism‑related injuries, deaths or damages. In August 2025 a Manhattan district court ruled that the 9/11 families had sufficient evidence to move the case forward under JASTA.
Saudi Arabia has now asked the Appeals Court to reverse that ruling. The panel considered whether the lower court had made concrete findings on factual issues, such as Bayoumi’s employment status, before the kingdom could be stripped of its immunity. The argument highlighted that the district court had already found Bayoumi’s actions “not just those of a good Samaritan.”
The judges debated whether to send the case back to the district court for more definitive findings, potentially calling witnesses such as Bayoumi himself. Judge William Nardini noted the case’s difficulty and said it would issue a ruling at a future date.
Outside the courthouse, a family member expressed optimism, saying that after 25 years of waiting for accountability, the courts should uphold the district judge’s decision and bring the case to trial.
