Flanked by September 11 family members during a press conference on Aug. 15, 2002, Motley Rice co-founder Ron Motley announces the filing of groundbreaking litigation against the financiers and material supporters of the terrorist organization al Qaeda.

Press Release: September 11 Families Take Groundbreaking Action to Expose Terrorist Financing Schemes, Cut Off Money Pipeline.

In September 2002, Motley Rice releases major new findings by the firm’s investigative team that were exclusively obtained from the government of Spain and link members of the Saudi royal family to money laundering efforts that support terrorists. The firm’s efforts are later furthered by an Order from Judge Robertson for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia requesting the Spanish authorities provide all of the underlying data contained in their indictments of the Spanish-Saudi al Qaeda money laundering schemes.

Motley Rice intervenes in the criminal trial of Mounir el-Motassadeq in Germany and later receives approximately 45,000 pages of material that were considered for introduction in the German trial.

Motley Rice moves for and is granted an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that requests that the Spanish authorities provide all underlying data contained in their indictments of Spanish-Saudi money laundering schemes. The firm receives approximately 37,000 pages of documents, as well as surveillance video prepared by Ghasoub Al-Abrash Ghalyoun, one of the members of the Spanish al Qaeda cell. Motley Rice was able to share key pieces of evidence with the German prosecutors and our own government.

Motley Rice travels to Bosnia several times in 2002 to request documents that were seized in a series of FBI raids of Bosnian charities. The firm meets with members of the Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina in October, prompting three Orders from the Court directing the U.S. government to return the 'Bosnian' documents that were seized, and to provide a copy of the materials to the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism for use in the civil action.

On Dec. 12, 2002, The Wall Street Journal features Ron Motley in its article, “Litigating Terror – Tobacco Lawyer Takes on Saudis in a Sept. 11 Suit.”

September 11 family members and survivors represented by Motley Rice make victim impact statements before the German Court in the criminal trial of al Qaeda co-conspirator Mounir Motassadeq ahead of his conviction.

In March 2003, the U.S. prosecutor in Chicago sends 750,000 pages of the seized Bosnian documents to Motley Rice, including the critical “Golden Chain” document that lists the major financial contributors to the formation of al Qaeda and minutes describing the formation of al Qaeda, its pledge, and membership requirements, marketing strategy and much more.

On June 23, 2003, The Post and Courier features the Motley Rice legal team for the September 11 families and survivors in its article, “Special Report: The King of Torts vs. al-Qaida Inc.”

“Can a trial lawyer expose Saudi complicity in terrorism?” The New York Times Magazine features Motley Rice co-founder Ron Motley on March 14, 2004.

Spain provides documents containing information on wiretaps and financial transfers of money directly to the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, as well as evidence of operational planning meetings in Spain as late as June of 2001.

As federal investigations into the 9/11 attacks intensify, The New York Times publishes its article, “9/11 Files Show Warnings Were Urgent and Persistent,” on April 18, 2004.

On July 22, 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, releases its official findings on the events that led up to the terrorist attacks. Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean chaired the bipartisan Commission and oversaw the review of millions of pages in documents, and interviews involving more than 1,200 across several countries during the nearly 2-year investigation. The work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States concluded shortly thereafter on August 21, 2004.

Motley Rice attorney for the September 11 families and survivors Michael Elsner interviews Niaz Khan. A citizen of the U.K., born in Pakistan, Khan asserts he defected from al Qaeda in 2000 and warned the FBI of impending plans to attack U.S. civilians.

U.S. District Judge Richard Conway Casey rules on a motion to dismiss the 9/11 litigation.

In 2005, Motley Rice continues to cooperate with the Spanish criminal prosecution of al Qaeda by Judge Baltasar Garzon, including providing the Spanish Court with a certified copy of the 9/11 Commission & Joint Congressional Intelligence Committee Findings.

On June 5, 2005, The Post and Courier reports on Motley Rice’s growing trove of records detailing the scope of the attacks and the financial backing of global terrorism in its article, “Database uncovers links terrorists work to conceal.”

Ron Motley argues for the release of key documents April 7, 2006 during a hearing regarding the prosecution of al Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui.

Fourteen settlements are announced in September 2007 for some survivors and families of the September 11 victims, while others maintain their desire to see their case through to trial. The settling families and survivors “had reached a point where they were satisfied that the mix of their motivations — from compensation to accountability, to answers — was satisfied,” Motley Rice attorney Don Migliori tells The New York Times in the article, “Settlements Do Not Deter 9/11 Plaintiffs Seeking Trials.”

Several family members of 9/11 victims have issued a statement on behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in response to the Solicitor General's refusal to support the September 11 families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On Friday, May 29, the Justice Department filed a brief with the high court supporting the Saudi royal family's argument of sovereign immunity from the 9/11 terrorist financing lawsuit.

In U.S. embassy cables dated Dec. 30, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states “Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide. … Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups… ”

On Feb. 29, 2012, The New York Times publishes its article, “Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say.”

U.S. Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) joins September 11 widow Terry Strada on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss their continued demands that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia be brought to justice.

On Dec. 19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reverses an earlier decision that had dismissed claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission.

On June 24, 2014, the 9/11 Families United For Justice Against Terrorism pen a letter to President Obama demanding the release of 28 redacted pages that were withheld from the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001. In 2002, at the time of the report’s release, then President George W. Bush, said the pages would “damage American intelligence operations, revealing ‘sources and methods that would make it harder for us to win the war on terror.’”

On June 30, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear a defense appeal of the litigation, allowing claims to move forward against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

Motley Rice donates a 77-page “Foreseeability Timeline” to the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York City, outlining events over several decades that should have alerted authorities to the possibility of an imminent attack.

In November 2014, terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui alleges that he previously met with a Saudi prince and princess who provided funding in support of the 9/11 hijackers.

September 11 widow Terry Strada appears on CNN to discuss the release of a controversial report detailing “enhanced interrogation” methods used by the CIA against suspected terrorists.

Calls increase for the release of the 28 redacted pages that were withheld from the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.

The U.S. government releases the missing 28 pages from the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 report on July 15, 2016, roughly 14 years after the documents were first hidden in a vault under the Capitol.

The September 11 victims, survivors and families file an amended complaint adding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a defendant in the civil litigation.

Litigation filed by the September 11 families and survivors overcomes a motion to dismiss from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on March 28, 2018. The federal judge overseeing the case finds that plaintiffs’ allegations met required standards for the case to move forward under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). In addition to denying the defense’s motion, U.S. District Judge George Daniels for the Southern District of New York also grants a plaintiffs’ request seeking to conduct targeted jurisdictional discovery.

On Aug. 27, 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn declines to seal more than 6,000 pages in documents produced by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Post and Courier publishes “The Terrorism Files: 18 years after 9/11, an SC man’s lawsuit against foreign government kicks into high gear,” featuring Motley Rice attorney Robert Haefele on Sept. 10, 2019.

On Sept. 12, 2019, the Department of Justice files a document explaining, “In light of the exceptional nature of this case, the FBI has determined to exercise its discretion, pursuant to section 3.1 (d) of Executive Order 13526, to declassify the name of the third main subject in the public interest and to release that name to counsel for the parties under the FBI Protective Order.” However, it added that “[t]he remaining information that has been redacted from the 2012 Summary Report remains classified and/or privileged and protected from disclosure.”

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn heard arguments regarding Sudan’s motion to dismiss defaults entered against it.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issues an order requiring Saudi officials to sit for depositions.

The White House announced President Trump's intent to rescind Sudan's terrorism designation, which followed an agreement by Sudan's transitional government to pay compensation to victims of terrorist attacks the previous government had been implicated in, principally the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings.

The Court vacated default judgments against Sudan, the Court approved the filing of two new consolidated complaints, the Ashton Amended Complaint and the Consolidated Amended Complaint, covering the plaintiffs in the five original actions.

The Ashton Amended Complaint and the Consolidated Amended Complaint were filed. In these complaints, Plaintiffs allege that Sudan knowingly provided material support to al Qaeda beginning in the early 1990s, including by helping to raise funds for the terrorist organization, harboring its founder Osama Bin Laden, sponsoring terrorist training camps, and providing diplomatic cover to al Qaeda operatives. Plaintiffs alleged that without Sudan's support, al Qaeda would not have been capable of perpetrating the September 11 attacks and, therefore, seek to hold Sudan liable for the mass destruction, injuries, and deaths that resulted from the attacks.

The PEC file supplemental pleadings against The Republic of Sudan, adding allegations to the original lawsuit.

The Court sets a June 30, 2021 deadline for completion of depositions of the Saudi fact witnesses and, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, parameters on how the parties could conduct depositions.

Sudan, acting under a transitional government following the fall of longtime dictator Omar al-Bashir who had ruled from 1989 to 2019, finally appeared in the litigation to request dismissal of the default judgements entered against it.

Congress enacted the SCRA an agreement between the U.S. and Sudan, which restored Sudan's sovereign immunity and eliminated district court jurisdiction over most terrorism-related claims. While the SCRA terminated most U.S. nationals' terrorism claims against Sudan, critically, the statute carved out an exception: it expressly stated that the claims in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 were not terminated by the settlement, that they "remain pending," and that nothing in the Act should affect them.

The FBI produced additional documents identifying Omar Al Bayoumi as an agent of the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. They are released pursuant to Executive Order 14040. The documents also shed additional light on the Saudi government’s affiliations in the U.S.

Plaintiffs exchange expert reports with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the dismissal of certain federal, stated, and internal law claims but otherwise denying Sudan’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated complaints.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn amended her Report and Recommendation upon Plaintiffs’ motion for partial reconsideration.

Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York issued a 30-page opinion denying attempts to gain access to the $3.5 billion in frozen DAB assets. Daniels adopted the Magistrate's finding that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and was "constitutionally restrained from determining the Taliban is the legitimate government of Afghanistan as required to attach DAB's assets.".

The Court grants Dubai Islamic Bank’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the bank. 

The Court denies a plaintiff request that sought authorization to resolve a discovery issue on appeal.  The discovery issue stemmed from a March 28, 2018, order that limited plaintiffs’ discovery to inquiries surrounding Omar Al Bayoumi, Fahad Al Thumairy, and their support network. Plaintiffs have fought to expand this discovery to other theories of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

The Republic of Sudan moves to dismiss claims against it over material support for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The Court denied the motion. 

Judge Daniels heard oral argument on the parties’ objections to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn’s recommendation that Sudan’s motion to dismiss be denied.

Plaintiffs successfully petition the Court to strike testimony from defense expert Ambassador Chas Freeman. Additionally, the Court limits portions of testimony from three other defense expert witnesses – Jonathan Benthall, Jonathan Marks and John Sidel. 

U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni declines to confirm an earlier attachment order on the grounds that Da Afghanistan Bank’s assets were immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations holds a hearing titled “The PGA-LIV Deal: Implications for the Future of Golf and Saudi Arabia's Influence in the United States.” PGA Tour COO Ron Price and board member Jimmy Dunne testify. Terry Strada and members of 9/11 Justice, including Tara Strobert-Nolan, whose husband died on 9/11, sit in the audience. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the subcommittee chair, repeatedly invokes 9/11 and calls Saudi Arabia a “repressive regime” that committed “sportswashing.” Dunne personally vows to meet with September 11 families. Senators from both parties question whether the deal would give Saudi Arabia undue influence over an American institution.

“We know why the PGA Tour is doing it—it's for the money. But that isn't why the Saudis are doing it. They're doing it as a public relations strategy to distract from their authoritarian past and present, and especially their unacknowledged culpability for supporting al Qaeda and the hijackers of Sept. 11.” – Terry Strada

The Court denies the Republic of Sudan’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing claims to proceed against the country. The Republic of Sudan later appeals this decision.

Sudan filed a notice of appeal of Judge Daniels’ August 10, 2023 denial of its motion to dismiss.

Saudi Arabia files a third motion to dismiss the case. Extensive briefing is then undertaken over the course of many months. 

CBS News aired a 60 Minutes Overtime segment featuring the Omar Al-Bayoumi ‘casing’ video of the U.S. Capitol. The FBI has identified Al-Bayoumi as a Saudi intelligence agent who was known to have “provided substantial assistance” to the hijackers. In the video, Al-Bayoumi notes entrances and exits of the U.S. Capitol in addition to security posts and a model of the building. The video was originally seized by British police in the days following 9/11. 

The Court hears arguments regarding Saudi Arabia’s latest attempt to have the case dismissed. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that significant new evidence shows Bayoumi worked as an undercover agent of Saudi Arabia's "militant extremist network" known as the Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Plaintiffs also presented significant evidence including a reconstruction video, call–pattern analyses, and demonstratives from third–party discovery, FBI records, and Saudi discovery regarding Al Bayoumi, Al–Thumairy, and other Saudi officials. At the time of the hearing, the Court reserved decision on the motion.

Alleged architect of the 9/11 Attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two of his co-defendants, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, agree to plead guilty in exchange for sentences of up to life in prison rather than facing a death-penalty trial. As part of their plea bargains, they would be required to answer questions from victim family members about how and why they planned the attacks. A third alleged accomplice, Ammar al-Baluchi, did not agree to a plea deal. A fourth, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, had been declared mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin rescinds the plea deals, saying the agreements caught him off guard and that he wanted the case to proceed toward a death-penalty trial. Defense attorneys dispute this, pointing out that plea negotiations had been underway for more than two years.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Sudan’s appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over Sudan's interlocutory appeal, declining to independently assess the timeliness or plausibility of the § 1605A claims and instead deferring to the district court pending any appeal from a final judgment. This meant the case returned to the District Court where Sudan was required to answer the Consolidated Amended Complaint and “Ashton Complaint within fourteen days.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Sudan’s challenge to the district court’s ruling that the country was not immune to liability for providing material support to al Qaeda prior to the September 11th terrorist attacks. The September 11th families hope to move forward with discovery.

The Second Circuit scheduled oral argument on the availability of Da Afghanistan Bank/Taliban assets.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels denied Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss rejecting Saudi Arabia’s argument that the exception to its sovereign immunity, provided by the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act, does not apply and finding the undisputed facts allow the Court to maintain jurisdiction of the proceedings as plaintiffs’ claims advance to trial.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn stays any aspects of the litigation that require a response from a federal agency, including the DOJ, are stayed during the government shutdown, including Sudan-related subpoenas and associated deadlines.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief under seal in the Second Circuit appeal of the district court’s denial of Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to reconsider a rehearing of its earlier decision blocking 9/11 plaintiffs from using certain U.S.-based assets of Afghanistan’s central bank (Da Afghanistan Bank) to help satisfy judgments against the Taliban. Circuit Judge Richard J. Sullivan wrote one of two dissents, stating that the majority’s August 2025 decision exhibited an “oversimplistic approach to statutory interpretation.”

Plaintiffs sought to extend discovery related to Sudan to allow the CIA, FBI, and State Department to substantially complete document productions prior to depositions as many of the records to be produced concern U.S. government investigations of the Sudanese government’s relationship and support for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the appeal of the district court’s denial of Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss.