9/11 Families Pass Another Step Toward Their Day in Court Against Saudi Arabia
The catastrophic events on September 11, 2001, left behind a tragedy with no easy answers. Since then, the families of those killed and victims injured in the attacks have fought the good fight in pursuit of truth and justice.
On August 28, 2025, District Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York issued a historic order that cleared a path to trial by allowing claims brought by the 9/11 Families and Victims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to continue. In denying Saudi Arabia’s most recent motion to dismiss, Judge Daniels found that Saudi Arabia failed to successfully prove that litigation brought against the Kingdom falls outside of the scope of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) – an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) that waives foreign immunity in U.S. courts for terror attacks committed on U.S. soil. Saudi Arabia did not convince the court they were exempt from JASTA. The body of undisputed facts was enough for the court to retain jurisdiction and the plaintiffs may proceed to trial.
Today, on the 24th anniversary of the tragic events underlying this litigation, it is worth revisiting the evidence uncovered in these proceedings which has created a detailed record that merits continued attention.
Saudi Arabia attempts to evade justice amid mounting evidence
The pursuit of Saudi Arabia was initially halted by a 2015 ruling dismissing it from the litigation. However, the passage of JASTA in May 2016, following a veto that was overridden by then-President Obama, revived the suit against Saudi Arabia in March 2017. Saudi Arabia renewed its request for dismissal in 2023.
Plaintiffs argued against Saudi Arabia’s renewed motion to dismiss on July 31, 2024. During these arguments, a courtroom in the Southern District of New York became a window into the events alleged to have preceded the attacks. For the first time, plaintiffs were able to publicly present a comprehensive picture of the assistance rendered by various individuals employed by the Saudi Government or acting at the direction of Saudi officials.
Plaintiffs revealed that Fahad al Thumairy, an imam who held diplomatic status, and Omar al Bayoumi, a Saudi employee who was allegedly sent to America to study, had reporting lines including Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs officials and diplomats at the Saudi Embassy, demonstrating alignment with the support provided by Saudi Arabia. The evidence indicates that Thumairy and Bayoumi coordinated with senior Saudi Government officials during key moments of support preparation for the hijackers including a calling chain involving Anwar Aulaqi, an al-Qaeda terrorist leader.
The evidence included a 1999 videotape taken by Bayoumi documenting the structural features of the U.S. Capitol Building and the surrounding area in D.C. This includes the Capitol’s columns, means of egress and ingress, lines of approach, gates, barriers, security gates, and surrounding areas. In Arabic, Bayoumi tells his viewer, “I am transmitting these scenes to you from the heart of the American capital, Washington.” At one point, Bayoumi’s attention shifts to an unfamiliar building and he states, “I will get over there and I will report in detail what is there,” suggesting this is not a tourist video, as Bayoumi claimed, but rather that he is operating under a work assignment. He admits as much while filming an employee leaving for the day as he states, “The working day is about to end. Theirs, of course, not mine.” Bayoumi films the surrounding monuments and refers to “the plan.” Further verification is provided by the dates of the video, coinciding with Bayoumi’s work dates for Saudi Arabia. Retired FBI special agent Danny Gonzalez, one of the lead 9/11 investigators in San Diego, who worked on the case for fifteen years, recently expressed frustration during a 60 Minutes interview that he never knew about Bayoumi’s video of the Capitol.
Bayoumi's property raided in the United Kingdom after September 11
Following the September 11th Attacks, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) of the United Kingdom, alerted by the FBI, raided Bayoumi's property and arrested him on September 21, 2001, detaining him for a statutory seven-day interrogation period. In collaboration with the FBI, the MPS analyzed the seized evidence and produced the materials to plaintiffs in 2022 and 2023. Because the expanded video available in the MPS production included footage in which Bayoumi required each person to state their name on videotape and introduce themselves to the hijacker, plaintiffs were finally able to reveal the identity of all 29 individuals present at the party— a vivid representation of the support network in action. The individuals in attendance were united in their ideology and were part of an established extremist network in San Diego. The support these individuals supplied to the hijackers was wide-ranging and included communication assistance, transportation, housing, and dental work rendered with no apparent payment.
Another damning piece of evidence found among Bayoumi’s belongings was a hand-drawn aviation sketch with mathematical calculations that Bayoumi admitted he prepared. The sketch depicted a plane’s height from the earth in miles and its distance to the horizon and was illustrated with an airplane sketch. An expert for plaintiffs testified that the creation of such a flight planning tool indicates Bayoumi had foreknowledge of the attack’s modus operandi.
Comparing Saudi Arabia’s depositions to raw evidence
Plaintiffs argued that Saudi Arabia’s depositions show a pattern of lies and deceit, demonstrated by comparing the testimony to raw evidence. For example, plaintiffs highlighted several incredible denials that occurred in depositions, including Thumairy denying he knew Bayoumi, despite records showing 67 calls between them leading up to their final known phone contact on September 2, 2001.
The evidence presented by plaintiffs paints a disturbing picture of coordinated support that extends far beyond coincidence or casual assistance. As this litigation advances to trial, the evidence uncovered by the plaintiffs serves not only the cause of justice for the victims and their families but the vital imperative of historical truth.
The American people deserve a complete accounting of how these attacks were facilitated. We are now preparing to be able to tell that story in its entirety in the courtroom. Those responsible must be held accountable. The fight for truth that began 24 years ago continues in the halls of justice, where the evidence now speaks louder than denials ever could.