New York appeals court weighs whether 9/11 families' lawsuit against Saudi Arabia can proceed to trial

New York's Court of Appeals has heard competing arguments from lawyers representing the families of people killed in the September 11 attacks and counsel for Saudi Arabia, in a case that will determine whether a quarter-century legal battle can finally reach a courtroom trial. The hearing, held on Wednesday, marks one of the most significant chapters in a lawsuit first lodged in 2002, when relatives of the victims began seeking to hold the Saudi state accountable for what they allege was official support for the hijackers.

At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether a foreign sovereign nation can be stripped of its traditional immunity from prosecution in American courts under specific counter-terrorism legislation. Saudi Arabia maintains that, as an independent state, it is protected from civil claims brought in the United States. The families counter that evidence of official involvement in the attacks removes that protection and entitles them to present their case before a jury.

The attacks themselves remain among the deadliest acts of terrorism in modern history. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives on 11 September 2001 after a group of militants seized four American passenger aircraft. Two were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, one struck the Pentagon near Washington DC, and a fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to overpower the attackers.

The families' central allegation concerns Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi government employee who, they claim, knowingly assisted two of the hijackers and operated within a broader network of individuals connected to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Bayoumi, who has since retired from government service, has rejected those claims, insisting he was unaware of the men's plans and had no part in the attacks. Saudi Arabia has gone further, describing any suggestion of complicity by the kingdom or its officials as categorically false.

The legal path to this week's hearing has been long and曲折. Because the families initially faced the barrier of sovereign immunity, they spent years lobbying the United States Congress to change the law. Their efforts culminated in 2016 with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA, which permits civil claims against a foreign state or its representatives when injuries, deaths, or damages arise from an act of international terrorism.

That legislative victory did not immediately open the courthouse doors. The families still had to demonstrate that their evidence met the requirements of the new statute. In August 2025, a Manhattan District Court ruled in their favour, concluding that they had put forward sufficient material to satisfy JASTA's terms and allowing the case to move towards a trial. Judge George Daniels, who presided over that decision, became a focal point for the families, who hope the appeals court will leave his ruling intact.

Saudi Arabia's lawyers asked the Court of Appeals this week to overturn that decision. Gregory Rapawy, counsel for the kingdom, argued that fundamental questions of fact remain unresolved. He contended that the nature of Bayoumi's employment by the Saudi state — a matter he described as central to the case — has not been definitively established, and he insisted such issues must be settled before the country can be deprived of its immunity.

Representing the families, Gavin Simpson urged the court to respect the findings already made at the district level. He noted that the lower court had determined Bayoumi's actions could not be dismissed as those of a well-meaning bystander or an unwitting participant. Simpson argued that Bayoumi was carrying out instructions from the Saudi authorities when he helped the hijackers, and he maintained that the kingdom had offered nothing sufficient to disprove those conclusions.

The three-judge panel appeared to consider a possible middle path: returning the case to the district court for more definitive findings, a process that could involve hearing testimony from live witnesses. Judge Guido Calabresi questioned Rapawy about whom Saudi Arabia might call in such a scenario. The lawyer responded that if Bayoumi's credibility ultimately became the decisive issue, it remained to be seen whether the retired official could be summoned to testify.

Legal observers note that such a procedural route would delay the case further while potentially strengthening the evidentiary record on both sides. For the families, any postponement adds to what has already been an extraordinarily long wait for their day in court. For Saudi Arabia, a remand could provide an opportunity to challenge the strength of the plaintiffs' case before a trial begins.

Closing the hearing, Judge William Nardini acknowledged the complexity of the matter, telling the courtroom that it was a difficult case and that the panel would take it under advisement — an indication that a written ruling will follow at a later date rather than immediately.

Outside the courthouse, Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in the World Trade Center, told the BBC she left feeling optimistic about how the arguments had unfolded. She described 25 years without accountability as an extraordinary period for families mourning the murder of loved ones, and expressed hope that the judges would uphold Judge Daniels' decision and allow the case to proceed to trial.

The outcome will be watched far beyond New York. A decision to allow the case forward could reshape how survivors of terrorist attacks seek justice against foreign governments, while a reversal would likely rekindle debate over the reach and limits of JASTA. Either way, the ruling will carry profound implications for the families who have pursued this fight for more than two decades.