25 years later, 9/11 families are still fighting to get their day in court

The families of 9/11 victims have been fighting for more than two decades for the right to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its alleged role in the attacks. They may soon get their day in court — so long as a circuit court respects the will of Congress.

Not long after the attacks, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives , a troubling set of facts emerged. A majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals . Although the Saudi government has denied involvement and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials individually funded al Qaeda, the country had been a major backer of charities that supported extremist ideologies. And some Saudi government officials had apparent connections to some of the attackers.

When victims’ families began suing the kingdom in 2002 , Saudi Arabia moved to have the claims dismissed based on the concept of sovereign immunity , which holds that a government may only be sued with its consent. Riyadh argued that a 1976 law — the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act — only allowed lawsuits to be filed against countries on the State Department’s list of terrorism sponsors.

In 2005, the federal district court agreed with Saudi Arabia, which wasn’t on the list. This prompted another decade of legal wrangling and uncertainty for the families. Finally, Congress intervened.

Overwhelming bipartisan majorities passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act in 2016 over President Obama’s veto . The 2016 law removed the requirement that a state sponsor of terror must be on the State Department’s list.

The 2016 law also made clear that a foreign government can be sued for monetary damages for “an act of international terrorism in the United States.” Critically, the injury must be caused by a wrongful act of the foreign government or “any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state,” while “acting within the scope” of his employment, even if the act occurred outside the U.S.

The 9/11 families have long argued that Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi — a Saudi diplomat and alleged intelligence asset, respectively — helped two of the hijackers in Southern California. The legal process resumed in 2017, and both men have become central to the legal dispute. Saudi Arabia, once again, sought to get the lawsuit dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, but in August 2025, a district court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.

The district court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support, for jurisdictional purposes, a claim that al-Bayoumi met with two of the al Qaeda hijackers in 2000 and helped them open a bank account and find an apartment. It also held that al-Bayoumi and al-Thumairy coordinated “to some degree for the same goal.” The court emphasized that this was a preliminary finding to establish jurisdiction, and the families must still prove their claims at trial.

Saudi Arabia appealed to the Second Circuit, which heard oral arguments on Oct. 7. The lawyer representing Saudi Arabia told the court that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has never supported its enemy, al Qaeda, against its ally, the United States.”

He also argued that al-Bayoumi and al-Thumairy were not acting within the “scope of employment,” which the amended law requires before Saudi Arabia can be held responsible for their conduct. He argued that no one in the Saudi government directed them to assist the hijackers.

The appellate judges indicated that the issues are difficult and complex. Lawyers involved in the case reportedly do not expect a ruling until next year. Yet Congress changed the law 10 years ago precisely to give the families a pathway to test their claims, which may or may not prevail in court.

Whatever the outcome, families — and the nation more broadly — deserve the closure that a rigorous, fair and open legal process can bring.

Bryce Poole is a senior legal fellow in the Meese Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom