9/11 Families’ Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia: Judge Daniels’ Ruling

After more than twenty years of legal fighting, the 9/11 families’ lawsuit against Saudi Arabia is finally cleared to move toward trial. On August 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels denied the Kingdom’s motion to dismiss, ruling that Saudi Arabia had failed to prove it was shielded from suit under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.¹ No trial date has been set, and the Kingdom retains the right to appeal or pursue a settlement.²

The case, consolidated as In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (MDL No. 03-MD-01570) in the Southern District of New York, was originally filed in 2002 on behalf of victims’ relatives, survivors, insurance companies, and businesses. It alleges that Saudi government employees knowingly assisted the al-Qaeda hijackers who carried out the attacks.³

What Judge Daniels Decided in August 2025

Judge Daniels found “a high probability as to Bayoumi and Thumairy’s roles in the hijackers’ plans, and the related role of their employer.”² He wrote that the evidence indicated the two men provided “knowing assistance to the 9/11 terrorists” as part of their employment by the Kingdom, rejecting Saudi Arabia’s argument that they were an accountant and an imam acting on their own initiative.⁴

The ruling directly contradicts the FBI’s official conclusion that the two men acted “unwittingly.” It is the first time in the litigation’s history that a court has found the evidence strong enough to send the Kingdom to trial.

How JASTA Made the Case Possible

For most of the litigation’s life, Saudi Arabia’s shield was the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In 2008, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the claims against the Kingdom, holding that none of the FSIA’s exceptions applied.⁵ The claims were reinstated on other grounds, dismissed again in 2015, and only revived after Congress acted.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed in 2016, amended the FSIA to create a new exception: a foreign state can be sued in U.S. courts for physical injury, property damage, or death occurring on American soil as a result of international terrorism, regardless of where the foreign state’s tortious acts took place.⁶ JASTA applies retroactively to any civil action pending on or filed after September 28, 2016, involving injuries on or after September 11, 2001.⁷ President Obama vetoed the bill on September 23, 2016; Congress overrode the veto five days later.⁸ The Saudi litigation was revived in March 2017.

The Two Saudi Employees at the Center of the Case

The evidence Judge Daniels found persuasive concerns two Saudi nationals who were in Southern California when hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar arrived in Los Angeles in January 2000.

Omar al-Bayoumi

Bayoumi was a graduate student and employee of the Saudi civil aviation agency. According to evidence in the litigation, he met the two hijackers in Los Angeles, helped them find housing in San Diego, assisted with banking and transportation, and connected them to a local support network.² In 2017, the FBI concluded that Bayoumi was a Saudi spy, a finding that remained classified until 2022.⁹ An FBI report identified him as a “GIP Cooptee” reporting to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005.¹⁰

Fahad al-Thumairy

Thumairy was a Saudi imam and consular official at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles who also served at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City. FBI records show 67 phone calls between Thumairy and Bayoumi, with the last on September 2, 2001; Thumairy nevertheless denied knowing Bayoumi in his deposition.¹ A witness told the FBI that Thumairy instructed an associate to help the hijackers upon their arrival. The State Department revoked his diplomatic visa after the attacks, and when he tried to return to Los Angeles in 2003, he was deported.¹¹

The Evidence the Court Cited

Judge Daniels singled out two pieces of evidence as “facially connect[ing] Bayoumi with knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.”⁴

The first is a 1999 video, provided to plaintiffs’ lawyers by the London Metropolitan Police Service in December 2023, that shows Bayoumi touring the U.S. Capitol and documenting structural features, security gates, and approaches. In the footage he refers to “the demons of the White House.”¹² Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell reviewed the video and said, “No doubt in my mind that al-Qaeda tasked him to do this casing video.”¹⁰

The second is a hand-drawn sketch of a plane, with a mathematical formula for calculating an aircraft’s altitude and distance from the horizon, found in Bayoumi’s notebooks. He also wrote the calculation “52-8=44,” which plaintiffs argue could indicate a distance of 44 miles from the World Trade Center. Asked about the drawing in his deposition, Bayoumi said he did not remember why he wrote it and called the math a high school equation.⁴

British authorities also turned over a full VHS recording of a February 2000 party hosted by Bayoumi where al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were featured guests.⁹

What the FBI’s Own Files Show

The plaintiffs’ access to FBI records shifted the case. President Trump’s administration initially invoked the state secrets privilege to block release of documents. President Biden reversed course in September 2021, ordering a declassification review of 9/11-related materials.¹⁰

A partially redacted 16-page FBI report from 2016, part of an investigation codenamed Operation Encore, contradicted key conclusions of the 2004 9/11 Commission. Where the Commission found no evidence Thumairy assisted the hijackers and characterized Bayoumi’s meeting with them as coincidental, the FBI report stated that Thumairy “tasked” an associate to help the hijackers, describing them as “two very significant people.” The report also noted that Bayoumi had “almost daily contact” with an associate of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind.¹³

The FBI’s internal picture is not uniform. A 130-page bureau report from July 2021 described a jihadist network supported by Saudi Arabia and its diplomatic personnel, and identified Musaed al-Jarrah, a former director of Islamic affairs at the Saudi embassy in Washington, as having “tasked” Bayoumi and Thumairy with assisting the hijackers. A separate FBI report from May 2021 closed Operation Encore with the opposite finding: that Thumairy, Bayoumi, and al-Jarrah did not knowingly conspire to assist the hijackers.¹² The four-year fact-finding phase produced nearly 10,000 pages of internal Saudi documents and 17,500 pages of FBI documents.

Saudi Arabia’s Response

The Kingdom maintains that allegations of government complicity are “categorically false” and that no evidence supports official involvement.¹³ Its defense counsel described the Capitol footage as “tourist” video and the airplane diagram as “homework.”² The Kingdom’s lawyers have emphasized that Saudi Arabia was a U.S. counterterrorism partner during the 1990s and had stripped Osama bin Laden of his citizenship before the attacks.¹⁴ Both Bayoumi and Thumairy were deposed and denied wrongdoing.

What Happens Next

No trial date has been set.² The August 2025 ruling cleared the procedural path, but a trial would open what plaintiffs describe as “expansive discovery” well beyond the limited jurisdictional discovery conducted so far. Plaintiffs continue to press for access to classified materials still suppressed under the state secrets privilege, and much of the deposition testimony obtained to date remains under seal. Plaintiffs have also submitted to the court, under seal, documentation of what they describe as Saudi intimidation of potential witnesses.¹⁵

Three paths remain open. Saudi Arabia may appeal Judge Daniels’s ruling. It may pursue settlement. Or the case may proceed to trial, which would be the first time a foreign sovereign faces a jury in U.S. court over the September 11 attacks. No settlement negotiations or diplomatic resolution efforts have been publicly reported.

Over 20 depositions of former Saudi officials have already been taken.¹⁶ In August 2020, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn ordered 24 current and former Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan, to make themselves available for questioning, finding that Bandar “likely has first-hand knowledge” regarding the diplomatic roles assigned to officials connected to the attacks.¹⁷

A Related JASTA Case Worth Watching

The 9/11 litigation is not the only case testing JASTA against Saudi Arabia. Victims and families of the December 6, 2019, mass shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola sued the Kingdom in Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, alleging it was grossly negligent in vetting and sending shooter Royal Saudi Air Force 2nd Lieutenant Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani for U.S. training. The attack killed three American servicemembers.¹⁸

A federal district court dismissed the Pensacola case in 2024. On November 10, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit partially reversed, ruling that allegations Saudi Arabia knowingly submitted false information to clear Al-Shamrani, conducted multiple security screenings as affirmative acts, and awarded him a scholarship despite his extremist views amounted to “grossly negligent acts of commission” sufficient to overcome sovereign immunity.¹⁹ The court distinguished “acts of commission” from “acts of omission,” holding that JASTA’s exclusion of “mere negligence” does not bar claims of gross negligence. The case has been remanded to the district court in Pensacola.²⁰ Its outcome could shape how the main 9/11 case is argued on appeal.

1
Motley Rice. September 11 Anniversary — Families Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Update
2
ProPublica. Saudi Arabia September 11 Lawsuit Trial
3
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 03-MD-01570
4
Axios. 9/11 Families Lawsuit Links Saudi Officials to Plot Despite Prince’s Denial
5
Congressional Research Service. In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 — Legal Analysis
6
Lawfare. Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — Initial Analysis
7
Norton Rose Fulbright. Layperson’s Guide — Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
8
Michigan Journal of International Law. JASTA Impact on the Principle of Sovereign Immunity
9
ProPublica. Saudi Officials May Have Assisted 9/11 Hijackers, New Evidence Suggests
10
9/11 Families United. Key Documents
11
ProPublica. Long-Secret FBI Report Reveals New Connections Between 9/11 Hijackers and Saudi Religious Officials in U.S.
12
Florida Bulldog. New Evidence Narrative in 9/11 Lawsuit Toxic for Saudi Arabia, FBI
13
NPR. Biden Declassifies Secret FBI Report Detailing Saudi Nationals’ Connections to 9/11
14
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. Judge Allows 9/11 Victims’ Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia to Proceed
15
Kreindler & Kreindler. 9/11 Terror Lawsuit — Saudi Arabia
16
9/11 Memorial & Museum. Seeking Justice — 9/11 Community and Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia
17
Jurist. US Judge Orders Saudi Officials to Testify in September 11 Attacks Lawsuit
18
Florida Phoenix. 11th Circuit Reinstates Claim Against Saudi Arabia in NAS Pensacola Mass Shootings
19
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Watson v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Case No. 24-11310
20
Pensacola News Journal. NAS Pensacola Attack Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Continues