New York court hears arguments in ongoing 9/11 families’ lawsuit against Saudi Arabia

The Court of Appeals in New York heard arguments from both sides as it decides whether the families’ long-standing lawsuit can move to trial.

The families claim Saudi government employee Omar al‑Bayoumi aided two hijackers, claiming he was part of a network linked to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Saudi officials deny involvement and assert that sovereign immunity protects them from US court proceedings.

In 2016 the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was passed, allowing civil claims against foreign states for acts of international terrorism. A Manhattan district court in August 2025 ruled the case met JASTA’s requirements and was allowed to proceed, prompting Saudi Arabia to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Lawyer Gregory Rapawy argued that key factual questions, such as Bayoumi’s role and whether the Saudi state could be stripped of immunity, had not been decided. Gavin Simpson countered, insisting that evidence showed Bayoumi was following Saudi instructions and that Saudi Arabia had failed to rebut that claim.

The panel considered whether to send the case back for further findings, possibly requiring live testimony. Judge Guido Calabresi asked which witnesses Saudi could call, to which Rapawy replied that Bayoumi might need to testify if credibility was the deciding issue.

Judge William Nardini concluded the case was difficult and that the panel would issue a decision at a later date.

Terry Strada, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center, expressed cautious optimism, hoping the appellate court would uphold the district court’s decision and move the case toward trial.