Federal Court Rules 9/11 Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Can Go to Trial

September 12, 2025 • by DailyClout

A U.S. federal judge has given a landmark win to families of the September 11, 2001 victims: they may proceed to trial in a lawsuit accusing Saudi Arabia of materially supporting the hijackers. The ruling, issued on August 28, 2025, in the Southern District of New York by Judge George B. Daniels, rejects Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss and clears the way for the case to move forward.

Background: Sovereign Immunity, JASTA, and Previous Hurdles

For many years, the Saudi government avoided civil suits in U.S. courts due to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). In 2015, a federal court dismissed a case against Saudi Arabia on just those grounds.

However, a key legal change came in 2016 when Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), overriding a presidential veto. JASTA amended FSIA to allow foreign states to be sued in U.S. civil courts if they are accused of materially supporting terrorism on U.S. soil. This law revived the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia.

What the Plaintiffs Allege

Thousands of plaintiffs—survivors, family members of victims, insurers, and others—claim Saudi Arabia, through certain employees/agents, provided crucial assistance to the hijackers. The case centers especially on two Saudi nationals:

Omar al-Bayoumi — Alleged to have helped two future hijackers (Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar) find housing, open bank accounts, and connect with support networks while in Southern California.
Fahad al-Thumairy — A Saudi imam and diplomat in Los Angeles alleged to have helped facilitate introductions and connections for those hijackers.

New evidence presented by plaintiffs undermines earlier FBI conclusions that these officials acted “unwittingly”—that is, without knowledge of the hijackers’ plans. For instance, video evidence shows Bayoumi filming landmarks in Washington before the attacks and referring to those scenes as part of a “plan.”

The Recent Ruling: What Judge Daniels Decided

Judge Daniels found that the plaintiffs had met the threshold needed to allow the lawsuit to survive the jurisdictional challenge. The key findings include:

There is sufficient evidence connecting Bayoumi and Thumairy to assisting the hijackers, in ways beyond mere chance or neutral contact.
Saudi Arabia did not provide strong enough counter-arguments to rule out the possibility that these individuals were acting within the scope of employment to support the hijackers.
The court’s decision addresses jurisdiction (can the lawsuit proceed?) rather than the merits (are the allegations proven?). Many factual disputes remain for trial.

Why This is a Significant Step

This marks one of the first times a U.S. court has allowed the case against Saudi Arabia to proceed so far after decades of procedural obstacles. It’s a major legal and symbolic victory for those who lost loved ones.
The ruling underscores how JASTA changed the ability of plaintiffs to seek accountability from foreign governments accused of supporting terrorism on U.S. soil. Without that law, sovereign immunity might have blocked this lawsuit permanently.

What Happens Next & Possible Saudi Response

The case moves toward trial, where both sides will present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and unpack the factual disputes. –
Saudi Arabia may appeal Judge Daniels’ decision, especially since foreign sovereign immunity is a sensitive legal doctrine.
If the trial proceeds, discovery will likely bring forth more documents, declassified material, and possibly testimony that has been difficult to obtain so far. The risks for Saudi Arabia include reputational exposure and legal liability if findings support the allegations.

Conclusion

The August 2025 ruling by Judge George B. Daniels is a turning point in a legal battle that has spanned more than two decades. It allows the families and survivors of the 9/11 attacks to push forward in their search for accountability. While many legal, factual, and procedural hurdles still lie ahead, this decision brings them significantly closer to a civil trial where the full scope of evidence can be examined.

DailyClout.IO will continue to follow this story.

Sources and further reading:

Spread the Word