The families v. Saudi Arabia

Under JASTA, a foreign state can be sued in U.S. courts for an act of international terrorism in the United States if its officials or agents, acting within their duties, caused it. [2] Saudi Arabia argued that Bayoumi and Thumairy did not act for the kingdom. Judge Daniels found that Saudi Arabia “did not carry its burden” to show the exception did not apply, so the claims “will proceed to decision on their merits.” [1]

On the apartment help, the judge wrote that the evidence “creates a reasonable inference that all the apartment-related assistance he provided for the hijackers was not just acts of a good Samaritan, but rather that he was following KSA’s instructions.” He added that some disputed facts, like the meaning of the airplane sketch, can only be settled at trial. [1]

At the 7 October 2026 argument, Saudi Arabia’s lawyer argued that the Commission, the FBI and the CIA had found no evidence the kingdom was behind the attacks. Judge William Nardini closed by calling it “a difficult case” and said the panel would take it under advisement. [1]

Lawyers in the case told ABC News they did not expect a ruling until early 2027. [2] NBC News notes that the lower court ruled the case could go ahead but did not decide the merits. [3]