In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

134 F. Supp. 3d 774 (2015)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
134 F. Supp. 3d 774 (2015)

Facts

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, families of the victims and other injured entities (together, the families) (plaintiffs) sued allegedly responsible parties, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia) and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina (SHC) (defendants). The families pleaded or sought to plead the following facts: Saudi Arabia and the SHC had a policy of donating humanitarian-relief funds to organizations in Saudi Arabia; due to negligence, the funds ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda for use in terrorist activities; in addition, four individuals who were nationals of Saudi Arabia allegedly supported the September 11 airplane hijackers; Abdul Rahman Hussayen, a nondescript Saudi governmental official, stayed at the same hotel in the same timeframe as three of the airplane hijackers; Omar al Bayoumi was an employee of a Saudi civil-aviation department who assisted the hijackers in acclimating to life in the United States; Osama Basnan was associated with the Saudi Embassy and was “being groomed to replace Bayoumi”; and Fahad al Thumairy, a Saudi official, met with al Bayoumi regarding the hijackers’ arrival in the United States. As to their conduct in the United States, none of the individuals were alleged to be acting in an official capacity as a representative of the Saudi government. Saudi Arabia and the SHC moved to dismiss the families’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It was uncontested that the only potentially applicable basis for jurisdiction was the noncommercial-tort exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Daniels, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership