The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments Wednesday regarding whether Saudi Arabia retains sovereign immunity in the ongoing civil lawsuit filed by families of 9/11 victims. The hearing centers on allegations that Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national living in New York, acted as an agent of the Saudi state when he assisted two of the hijackers prior to the attacks. The outcome will determine if the case can proceed to trial under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2002, was revived following the passage of JASTA in 2016, which amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow civil claims against foreign states for injuries resulting from international terrorism. In August 2025, Manhattan District Court Judge George Daniels ruled that plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to meet the statutory requirements, allowing the case to move forward. Saudi Arabia appealed this decision, arguing that core factual disputes regarding Bayoumi’s employment and the nature of his actions remain unresolved.
What the Left Is Saying
Attorneys representing the 9/11 families argue that the District Court correctly determined that Omar al-Bayoumi was not merely a passive observer but an active participant following instructions from Saudi officials. Gavin Simpson, counsel for the families, stated during oral arguments that the lower court found Bayoumi’s actions were “not just acts of a good Samaritan or an innocent participant.” Simpson argued that these findings establish a sufficient nexus to the Saudi state to overcome immunity, noting that the Kingdom had “failed to rebut” these points.
Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in the World Trade Center, expressed hope that the appellate judges would uphold Judge Daniels’ decision. Speaking outside the courthouse, Strada emphasized the long duration of the legal process, stating, “25 years is an extraordinary time to go without accountability and justice for the murder of your loved one.” The families’ legal team maintains that the evidence presented demonstrates a direct link between the alleged state sponsorship and the execution of the attacks.
What the Right Is Saying
Saudi Arabia’s legal team, led by counsel Gregory Rapawy, argued that the lower court erred by proceeding to trial without resolving fundamental questions of fact regarding the nature of Bayoumi’s employment. Rapawy contended that the Kingdom is entitled to sovereign immunity as a foreign state and that any allegation of complicity in 9/11 is “categorically false.” The defense emphasized that Bayoumi has denied knowing the hijackers’ intentions or having any involvement in the plot, and that his status as a state employee has not been definitively established.
The Kingdom’s position rests on the principle that foreign sovereign states are immune from prosecution in U.S. courts unless a clear exception applies. Rapawy suggested that if the case were remanded for further factual findings, it might require testimony from live witnesses to determine credibility. When asked by Judge Guido Calabresi if Bayoumi could be called to testify in such a scenario, Rapawy stated, “we would have to see,” indicating the complexities involved in securing testimony from individuals outside the immediate control of the court.
What the Numbers Show
The legal framework governing this case is the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), passed by Congress in 2016. JASTA amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism committed on U.S. soil. Prior to JASTA, the FSIA generally shielded foreign states from such lawsuits.
The timeline of the litigation spans over two decades. The initial complaint was filed in 2002. The case was stayed for years while Congress deliberated on JASTA. Following the law’s passage, the case resumed, leading to the August 2025 ruling by the Manhattan District Court that allowed it to proceed. The current appeal is being heard by a panel including Judge Guido Calabresi and Judge William Nardini. The specific number of plaintiffs and the total damages sought are not detailed in the current reporting, but the case represents a consolidated effort by multiple families of victims.
The Bottom Line
The Second Circuit’s ruling will decide whether the 9/11 families’ lawsuit proceeds to a full trial or is dismissed on immunity grounds. Judge William Nardini described the case as “difficult” and stated the panel would take it under advisement, meaning a written opinion will be issued at a later date. One option considered by the judges was remanding the case to the district court for more concrete findings on Bayoumi’s employment status, which could involve extensive witness testimony.
If the appeals court upholds the lower court’s decision, the case will move toward discovery and potentially a jury trial, marking a significant precedent for suing foreign sovereign states in U.S. civil courts. If the court reverses the decision, the lawsuit may be barred entirely, ending the families’ decades-long pursuit of legal accountability through this specific avenue. The resolution will likely have implications for future JASTA cases involving other foreign entities.