Saudi 9/11 Lawsuit: August 2025 Ruling Clears Path to Trial

The Saudi Arabia 9/11 lawsuit is a consolidated federal case in which roughly 10,000 family members of those killed, survivors, first responders, and insurers accuse the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia of providing material support to two of the hijackers who carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks. On August 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels in Manhattan ruled that Saudi Arabia cannot hide behind sovereign immunity and that the claims can proceed toward trial for the first time in the case’s history.¹ Saudi Arabia denies the allegations and has said it will appeal.²

What the August 2025 Ruling Decided

Judge Daniels issued a 45-page opinion denying Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss. He concluded that the plaintiffs’ claims are “legally sufficient” to proceed under the exception to foreign sovereign immunity created by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.³

The central question was whether two Saudi employees, Omar al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy, were acting within the scope of their official duties when they allegedly helped the hijackers. Saudi Arabia argued they were not, offering what the court called “seemingly innocent explanations” for their conduct.⁴ Judge Daniels rejected those explanations. He found “reasonable evidence” that Saudi Arabia employed both men to assist the hijackers and that al-Bayoumi’s activities were “inconsistent with his official employment title” as an accountant.¹ The court described al-Bayoumi as a “connecting point” between the hijackers and those who provided them with logistical help.³

The ruling does not decide whether Saudi Arabia is liable. It decides only that the plaintiffs have shown enough for their case to move past the immunity stage and into the phase where a jury could ultimately weigh the evidence.

Why the Case Could Finally Move Forward

For years, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act blocked claims against Saudi Arabia. Foreign governments generally cannot be sued in American courts, and an early round of claims was dismissed after the kingdom successfully invoked a “discretionary function” defense.⁴

That changed on September 28, 2016, when the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA, became law. JASTA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1605B, created a new exception allowing U.S. courts to hear claims against a foreign state when acts of international terrorism cause physical injury, death, or property damage inside the United States. It also established civil aiding-and-abetting liability against anyone who “knowingly provides substantial assistance” to those who commit or plan terrorist acts.⁵ President Barack Obama vetoed the bill; Congress overrode the veto the same day.⁶ Saudi Arabia became the first foreign sovereign sued under the new statute.⁷

Kreindler & Kreindler filed a companion suit, Ashton et al v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in March 2017, and by June that year an amended complaint added more than 10,000 plaintiffs.⁸ All of the claims were consolidated before Judge Daniels in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, MDL No. 1570.

What the Families Allege

The complaint focuses on an alleged support network activated the moment two hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, arrived in Los Angeles on January 15, 2000. Two Saudi employees are at the center of the claim.

Omar al-Bayoumi

Al-Bayoumi was officially employed as an accountant for a Saudi aviation company. The FBI concluded in 2017 that he was in fact a Saudi intelligence agent, a finding kept classified until 2022, when it was declassified by order of President Joe Biden.⁹ It is undisputed that he helped al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar find an apartment in San Diego and signed the lease as their guarantor.² Plaintiffs allege he did much more: coordinating with other Saudi officials to receive and house the hijackers and introducing them to a network of sympathizers in Southern California.

Fahad al-Thumairy

Al-Thumairy served as an imam at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City, California, while also holding an official position with the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs and accreditation at the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles. The U.S. State Department revoked his diplomatic visa in 2003 due to suspected involvement with terrorist activity.⁹ According to the FBI’s Operation Encore investigation, al-Thumairy “tasked” an associate to help the hijackers when they arrived in Los Angeles, describing al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar as “two very significant people” more than a year before the attacks.¹⁰

Plaintiffs allege the two men organized a “welcome party” for the hijackers to embed them in a support network of community members and religious leaders.¹¹ Telephone records show at least five dozen calls between al-Thumairy and al-Bayoumi, along with calls involving the Islamic Affairs director at the Saudi Embassy in Washington in the two weeks before the hijackers arrived. Al-Thumairy has denied assisting the hijackers and has said he did not know al-Bayoumi, statements the litigation record characterizes as contradicted by the phone activity and multiple FBI informant sightings.⁹

The Evidence Behind the Claims

The plaintiffs’ case draws on two evidentiary streams that only recently entered the public record.

British Police Files

Ten days after the attacks, British police seized items from al-Bayoumi’s home in England. Among them was a notebook containing a sketch of an airplane in blue ink alongside a mathematical equation that an FBI expert determined could be used to calculate the descent rate needed for a plane to hit a target on the horizon.¹² Police also found a 1999 video filmed by al-Bayoumi showing the U.S. Capitol’s guards, entrances, and exits, in which he speaks in Arabic about “demons of the White House” and “their cars” in relation to “the plan.”¹³

The material had been turned over to the FBI between 2001 and 2002 but was never shared with the 9/11 Commission.¹² Plaintiffs’ attorneys obtained it after filing a 2021 freedom-of-information request with the Royal Courts of Justice. A team of eight Metropolitan Police detectives spent months sifting through 104 boxes of archived files.¹³ An additional production in May 2025 included 67 new exhibits.¹⁴

Declassified FBI Files

The FBI’s Operation Encore, which ran from roughly 2006 to 2021, examined whether Saudi officials knowingly supported the hijackers. A 16-page summary report written in 2016 concluded that al-Bayoumi’s encounter with the hijackers in a Los Angeles restaurant was a “preplanned, well-orchestrated event” rather than the chance meeting the 9/11 Commission had described.¹⁰

Access to those files was fought over for years. In 2019 and again in April 2020, Attorney General William Barr invoked the “state secrets” privilege to block disclosure, arguing release would cause “significant harm to the national security.”¹⁵ In September 2021, President Biden signed an executive order directing agencies to declassify documents from the 9/11 investigation files, and the 16-page Operation Encore summary was released on September 11, 2021.¹⁰ Further releases in 2022 documented extensive Saudi funding for al-Qaeda-linked Islamic charities and senior Saudi officials’ reluctance to cooperate with U.S. counterterrorism efforts.⁹

Saudi Arabia’s Response

Saudi Arabia categorically denies any involvement in the September 11 attacks. Following the August 2025 ruling, the Saudi embassy said it “categorically denies” the allegations and intends to appeal.² The kingdom has maintained throughout that “no evidence has ever emerged to indicate that the Saudi government or its officials had previous knowledge of the terrorist attack or were in any way involved in its planning or execution.”¹⁰

Its legal strategy has rested on sovereign immunity. Since 2003, Saudi Arabia has moved repeatedly to dismiss the claims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It has argued at various points that the territorial tort exception did not apply because some conduct occurred abroad, that the state sponsor of terrorism exception was inapplicable because it has never been designated a state sponsor, and, after JASTA, that its employees’ actions fell outside the scope of their official duties.⁴ Each of those arguments has now been rejected by the district court.

Who Is Suing

The consolidated case brings together roughly 10,000 plaintiffs: families of those killed, survivors, first responders, and insurance companies that paid out billions in claims. Reported damages sought are in the range of $1 trillion.¹⁶⁷ International claimants have joined from Argentina, Canada, France, Paraguay, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.¹⁷

Brett Eagleson, whose father was killed in the attacks, leads 9/11 Justice, a grassroots group of survivors, first responders, and bereaved families that lobbied for the JASTA override and pushed the Biden administration on declassification.¹⁸ “It’s mentally taxing,” Eagleson told NPR. “It keeps us away from our families, from our daily lives, keeps revisiting old wounds, and it makes it impossible to heal when here we are, 24 years later, and we’re still fighting for truth.”¹⁹

What Happens Next

The case has now cleared the sovereign immunity hurdle and is positioned to move toward trial on the merits for the first time. No trial date has been publicly set. Saudi Arabia has signaled it will appeal the August 2025 ruling, which could delay proceedings further.⁷ A settlement remains possible, though neither side has publicly acknowledged negotiations. New evidence continues to enter the record as declassified FBI files and British police productions are added.²⁰

1
The New York Times. Saudi Arabia Lawsuit by 9/11 Families
2
CBS News. Judge: Families of 9/11 Victims Can Sue Saudi Arabia Over Hijackers
3
The Guardian. 9/11 Victims’ Families Can Proceed With Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia
4
Terrorism Law Blog. District Court Denies Saudi Arabia’s Motion to Dismiss 9/11 Claims
5
GovInfo. Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, Public Law 114-222
6
Politico. Senate Votes to Override Obama Veto on JASTA
7
Axios. 9/11 Families’ Lawsuit Links Saudi Officials to Plot Despite Prince’s Denial
8
Kreindler & Kreindler. 9/11 Terror Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia
9
ProPublica. Saudi Officials May Have Assisted 9/11 Hijackers, New Evidence Suggests
10
NPR. Biden Declassifies Secret FBI Report Detailing Saudi Nationals’ Connections to 9/11
11
9/11 Families United. New Evidence Overview
12
The New York Times. Sept. 11 Saudi Ties
13
Sky News. 9/11 Survivors Question Unearthed Video Showing Saudi Agent
14
Florida Bulldog. Scotland Yard Releases 9/11 Records on Saudi Spy Omar al-Bayoumi
15
Florida Bulldog. Trump Officials Cited State Secrets to Hide 9/11 Report
16
The Times. Dozens of Britons Join $1 Trillion Lawsuit Accusing Saudi Arabia Over 9/11
17
The Guardian. Trillion-Dollar Lawsuit Filed Against Saudi Arabia
18
9/11 Justice. 9/11 Justice
19
NPR. 9/11 Families Justice and Plea Deal
20
Motley Rice. September 11 Anniversary: Families’ Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Update