In brief
The New York Court of Appeals is reviewing evidence in the long‑running lawsuit filed by 9/11 victims’ families against Saudi Arabia, who claim that Omar al‑Bayoumi, a former Saudi government employee, knowingly supported two hijackers. A August 2025 Manhattan district court ruling permitted the case to proceed, but Saudi Arabia has asked the appellate panel to reverse that decision. Lawyers for the families insist that Bayoumi followed Saudi instruction, whereas the Saudi counsel argues the country enjoys immunity as a sovereign state. The judges consider whether further factual determinations are required before the case can move to trial, with opinions on whether witnesses can be called. Families hope the panel will honor the lower court’s decision and bring the case to trial after years of waiting.
The Court of Appeals in New York has heard arguments from both sides about the 9/11 lawsuit, deciding whether the case can go to trial.
On 11 September 2001, nearly 3,000 people were killed when hijackers flew four U.S. passenger jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. Families of victims allege that a Saudi government employee, Omar al‑Bayoumi, knowingly supported two of the hijackers and worked with a network of officials linked to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs.
Bayoumi, now retired, denies any knowledge of the hijackers’ missions and claims he never aided them. Saudi Arabia rejects the allegation and insists that any claim of complicity in 9/11 is factually false.
In 2002 the families filed the lawsuit, and spent years lobbying Washington to amend the foreign sovereign immunity law. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was passed in 2016, allowing civil claims against foreign states or officials for terrorism‑related injuries, death or damages.
In August 2025 the Manhattan District Court allowed the case to proceed because the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence under JASTA. Saudi Arabia now seeks a reversal. Counsel Gregory Rapawy argued that key factual issues—such as Bayoumi’s employment status—had not been decided and must be resolved before the country could lose immunity.
Fourth‑naylor attorney Gavin Simpson countered that the district court had already ruled Bayoumi’s actions were “not just acts of a good Samaritan or an innocent participant.” He maintained these points had “failed to be rebutted.”
The judges weighed whether to send the case back to the district court for more concrete findings, which could include live witness testimony. When asked whether Saudi Arabia could eventually call witnesses, Rapawy suggested testimony might be necessary if Bayoumi’s credibility remains in doubt.
Judge William Nardini remarked, “It’s a difficult case, and we will take it under advisement,” indicating that a decision will come later.
Outside the courthouse, Terry Strada, whose husband Tom died in the World Trade Center, expressed optimism. She said, “Twenty‑five years is an extraordinary time to wait for accountability and justice for the murder of our loved one. We hope the judges uphold the district court’s decision and move to trial.”
