A two-decade legal battle just took a monumental turn! A judge has ruled that the 9/11 victims’ lawsuit against Saudi Arabia can finally head to trial. New evidence is already rewriting history and challenging previous official conclusions. What will this mean for accountability?
A federal judge’s landmark decision has cleared the way for a civil lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the government of Saudi Arabia to finally proceed to trial, marking a significant victory in a more than two-decade legal battle for accountability and justice.
This crucial ruling, issued by Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, represents a monumental step for the survivors and relatives of the 2,977 individuals who tragically lost their lives during the devastating attacks. The families have long sought to hold the Saudi kingdom responsible for alleged complicity in aiding the al-Qaeda hijackers.
The Saudi government, which has consistently rejected the plaintiffs’ accusations, retains the option to appeal the decision, leveraging special protections afforded to foreign governments under federal law. However, legal experts suggest the kingdom might consider a settlement to circumvent the intense scrutiny and extensive discovery that a major trial would inevitably bring.
Crucially, information unearthed by the plaintiffs during the protracted litigation has already begun to reshape the historical narrative of the 9/11 plot, directly challenging initial assessments presented by the George W. Bush administration and the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. This new evidence particularly undermines the FBI’s initial conclusion that two Saudi officials based in Southern California—Omar al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy—unwittingly assisted the first al-Qaeda hijackers upon their arrival in the United States.
The litigation has meticulously focused on the roles of these two lower-level Saudi officials. Omar al-Bayoumi, a graduate student and Saudi civil aviation agency employee, was found to have met the first two hijackers and provided them with crucial support, including housing, banking, and transportation assistance. Fahad al-Thumairy, a religious official and diplomat, also faced scrutiny for his interactions with the operatives.
Despite the FBI’s initial skepticism of al-Bayoumi’s claims of chance encounters, the bureau ultimately accepted his narrative. However, the civil lawsuit gained new momentum after Congress overrode a presidential veto in 2016, allowing the victims’ families to sue the foreign government. Further progress was made when President Joe Biden declassified documents that contradicted previous findings, confirming al-Bayoumi’s alleged ties to Saudi intelligence.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers have presented compelling evidence, including videotapes of al-Bayoumi touring Washington D.C. with Saudi religious officials tied to militants, and a diagram of an airplane found in his notebook, which aviation experts interpret as showing how a plane might hit a ground object. Judge Daniels, while acknowledging differing interpretations, endorsed the plaintiffs’ views, concluding there was “a high probability” regarding al-Bayoumi and al-Thumairy’s roles in the hijackers’ plans and their employer’s involvement, underscoring the severity of the allegations.
