In brief
The Court of Appeals is weighing Saudi Arabia’s sovereign‑immunity defence against a civil suit by 9/11 families who accuse former Saudi employee Omar al‑Bayoumi of aiding the hijackers. The lawsuit, enabled by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, has moved to trial after a Manhattan judge ruled in 2025 that enough evidence exists. Saudi officials deny complicity, while families argue that al‑Bayoumi acted under orders from Saudi authorities. A final ruling on whether the case will be tried is expected later this year.
The Court of Appeals in New York has heard arguments from both lawyers for families of 9/11 victims and the government of Saudi Arabia as it decides whether the families' long-running legal case against the Middle Eastern country can move to trial.
Almost 3,000 people were killed on 11 September 2001 after hijackers seized four US passenger jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.
The families allege that a Saudi government employee, Omar al-Bayoumi, knowingly supported two of the hijackers and was working with a network of officials linked to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs.
Bayoumi, who is now retired from government work, has denied knowing the two men were hijackers or that he had any involvement in 9/11, while Saudi Arabia has said that any allegation that it or its officials are complicit in 9/11 is categorically false.
Saudi Arabia argued that, as a foreign sovereign state, it has immunity from prosecution in US courts. The Kingdom has therefore requested a reversal of the Manhattan District Court ruling that allowed the case to proceed.
In 2016, Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which allows civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death or damages resulting from an act of international terrorism.
In August 2025, the Manhattan District Court ruled that the 9/11 families had presented enough evidence to meet the terms of the act and the case was allowed to proceed towards a trial.
Saudi Arabia asked the Court of Appeals to reverse that decision. Counsel Gregory Rapawy argued core issues of fact – including the central question of the nature of Bayoumi's employment by the Saudi state – had not been decided and needed to be resolved before the country could be stripped of immunity.
Gavin Simpson, the families’ lawyer, countered that the District Court had already found that Bayoumi's actions "were not just acts of a good Samaritan or an innocent participant" and that he was following Saudi Arabia's instructions when assisting the hijackers – points that Saudi said were not rebutted.
One option the judges seemed to wrestle with was whether to send the case back to the district court to make more concrete findings, which could involve taking testimony from live witnesses.
When asked by Judge Guido Calabresi which witnesses Saudi Arabia could call in that eventuality, Rapawy suggested that if the issue ultimately came down to Bayoumi's credibility, "we would have to see" if he could be called to testify.
As the hearing drew to a close, Judge William Nardini said "It's a difficult case, and we will take it under advisement", meaning that the panel will issue a ruling at a future date.
Speaking outside the courthouse, Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in the World Trade Center, told the BBC she felt positive about the hearing. "25 years is an extraordinary time to go without accountability and justice for the murder of your loved one. What we hope is that the judges will uphold the District Court decision and move to a trial," she said.
