9/11 Families Sue Saudi Arabia

NEW YORK, NY — Hundreds of families of 9/11 victims sued Saudi Arabia on Monday morning, officially seeking compensation from an entire country and accusing its government of complicity in the terror attacks.

The lawsuit is the latest step in a years-long effort from many victims' families to prove connections between Saudi government officials and the 2001 attacks. The suit, filed by the law firm Kreindler & Kreindler, alleges that parts of the country's government provided financial and logistical support to al Qaida before the attack.

The plaintiffs accused "officers, employees and agents" of the country of "providing material support and resources to the al Qaeda terrorist organization and facilitating the September 11th Attacks," according to the lawsuit.

Previous legal filings have stalled after judges cited the country's immunity from most lawsuits. Monday's lawsuit comes in the wake of a 2016 law that permits lawsuits to be filed in cases where a foreign country is suspected of sponsoring terrorism. The legislation, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, was passed by Congress over President Barack Obama's veto in September.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of about about 800 families who lost a family member during the attacks and another 2,500 people who were injured, according to Andrew Maloney, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler, the firm filing the suit.

"It's an important step in finally, hopefully having access to the courthouse," Maloney told Patch on Monday. "We have to prove our case, we still we have a long way to go."

If the lawsuit proceeds, the plaintiffs will have to convince a court that the Saudi government played a direct role in the attacks. A congressional report on 9/11 found "no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded" Al Qaeda, but speculation of connections between lower-level officers has persisted.

The legal filing might also be a precursor of other lawsuits now permitted through the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. When he vetoed the law, Obama took the unusual step of penning a letter to Congress, cautioning against the body's anticipated override.

"I recognize that there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured," Obama wrote last year. "Enacting JASTA into law, however, would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks."

Paul Stephan, a law professor at the University of Virginia, testified against the passage of JASTA before a House Judiciary Committee subcommittee, arguing that the law could open the U.S. up to litigation from abroad.

"I think that the principle concern was that it sets a bad example for the rest of the world and invited other countries to similarly suspend sovereign immunity," Stephan told Patch on Monday.

He also noted that should the lawsuit proceed, the connection between the Saudi government and 9/11, and whether government officials in fact sponsored terrorism, would be litigated in court, as opposed to being determined by an investigative agency.

"I also took exception to the premise of [JASTA], which is that...determining who is and is not a state sponsor ought to be done by courts, as opposed to the executive branch," he said. "This is a matter of anti-terrorism policy, and to hand that to the judiciary is a terrible idea."

This story has been updated throughout with additional information.

Lead image via Shutterstock