New York appeals court hears Saudi Arabia arguments in 9/11 families lawsuit
A New York appeals court has heard arguments from lawyers for families of 9/11 victims and from Saudi Arabia over whether a long-running lawsuit can move to trial. The case centres on allegations that a Saudi government employee, Omar al-Bayoumi, supported two of the hijackers and had links to officials connected to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. The hearing took place as the court considers whether the families have met the legal threshold needed to continue their case.
Sponsored
The attacks of 11 September 2001 killed almost 3,000 people after hijackers seized four US passenger jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. The families first filed their lawsuit in 2002 and later pushed for a change in US law that would allow certain civil claims against foreign states or officials. That effort contributed to the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act in 2016, which opened a route for claims involving injuries, death or damages from acts of international terrorism.
Saudi Arabia argues that, as a foreign sovereign state, it has immunity from prosecution in US courts and says any allegation that it or its officials were complicit in the attacks is categorically false. Bayoumi, who is now retired from government work, has denied knowing the two men were hijackers or having any involvement in 9/11. The families say the evidence shows Bayoumi knowingly supported the hijackers and was working within a network linked to Saudi officials.
The dispute matters because it goes to the question of whether one of the most closely watched civil cases linked to the 9/11 attacks can reach a full trial. In August 2025, the Manhattan District Court ruled that the families had presented enough evidence to meet the terms of the law and allowed the case to proceed. Saudi Arabia is now asking the appeals court to reverse that decision, making the hearing a key stage in a case with major legal and diplomatic implications.
Sponsored
The lawsuit has been moving through the US courts for years and has remained tied to broader debates over sovereign immunity and accountability in terrorism-related litigation. JASTA was designed to create a narrow exception to immunity in certain cases, and this dispute is testing how far that exception can reach. The families' lawyers say the lower court already found that Bayoumi's actions were not simply those of a good Samaritan or an innocent participant.
What remains unclear is whether the appeals court will agree that the case can continue toward trial or side with Saudi Arabia's immunity argument. The court has not yet issued a ruling, and the next step will depend on how it interprets the evidence and the legal standard under JASTA. The outcome will be closely watched by the families, by Saudi Arabia and by others following the long-running litigation over the 2001 attacks.
Sponsored
