US Federal Appeals Court Hears 9/11 Families' Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia: The Quarter-Century Challenge of Holding an Ally Accountable

The US Second Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing this week on a civil damages lawsuit brought by 9/11 victims' families against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. According to the BBC, plaintiffs' attorney Gavin Simpson argued in court that the Manhattan district court had already determined that the actions of key figure Fahd al-Bayoumi were "not simply acts of kindness or those of a blameless actor," but rather were made "in fact following Saudi Arabia's instructions" to assist the hijackers, and noted that Saudi Arabia had "failed to rebut" these core allegations. Gregory Rapawy, legal counsel for Saudi Arabia, countered that key factual questions, such as the nature of Bayoumi's employment by the Saudi government, had not yet been adjudicated, and that the country's sovereign immunity should not be stripped before the dispute was resolved.

The Saudi Kingdom has consistently denied any connection between its government or officials and 9/11. Bayoumi himself, who has retired from government service, also denied knowing in advance that the two men were hijackers or that he had any involvement in the attacks.

The legal path of this lawsuit itself reflects the difficulty of achieving accountability. The families first filed suit in 2002, then spent years lobbying the US Congress to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, ultimately succeeding in 2016 with the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which opened a legal channel for holding Saudi Arabia accountable. In August 2025, the Manhattan district court ruled that the families had presented sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of JASTA's provisions, allowing the case to proceed to trial, and Saudi Arabia promptly filed an appeal.

The political weight behind the case is also unavoidable. Saudi Arabia is a long-standing key US ally in the Middle East and one of the largest buyers of US arms. Over the course of more than two decades of investigation and litigation, the victims' families have repeatedly raised questions about whether the US government, out of diplomatic and energy interests, exerted implicit pressure on leads involving Saudi Arabia; JASTA itself is widely seen as a rare break in the long-standing diplomatic red line of ceding sovereign immunity to allies.

During the hearing, Judge Guido Calabresi pressed Saudi Arabia's side on who could be called to testify if the case were remanded to the district court for witness testimony. Rapawy responded that if the dispute ultimately focused on Bayoumi's credibility, whether he could testify "would have to be determined by the district court." Presiding Judge William Nardini said at the close of the hearing, "This is a difficult case, and we will deliberate carefully," meaning that the panel would issue a ruling at a later date.

Outside the courthouse, Terry Strada, widow of victim Tom Strada, told the BBC: "It is unacceptable that after 25 years we still cannot obtain accountability and justice for the death of our loved one. We hope the judges will uphold Judge Daniels's ruling and push the case toward trial."

Regardless of whether the panel ultimately chooses to uphold, overturn, or remand the case to the district court for witness testimony, the trajectory of this case will be closely tied to the legislative practice of JASTA, which represents a major break in the principle of foreign sovereign immunity, and will test the accountability boundaries of US courts when facing key strategic allies.