9·11事件遇难者家属为起诉沙特阿拉伯王国的权利奋斗了二十多年，指控该国在袭击中扮演了角色。只要联邦巡回法院尊重国会的意愿，他们可能很快就能迎来出庭审理的日子。
The families of 9/11 victims have been fighting for more than two decades for the right to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its alleged role in the attacks. They may soon get their day in court — so long as a circuit court respects the will of Congress.
袭击发生后不久，一组令人不安的事实浮出水面：这起夺走近3000条生命的袭击中，大多数劫机者是沙特国民。尽管沙特政府否认涉案，且9·11调查委员会认定没有证据表明沙特政府作为机构或高级官员个人资助了基地组织，但该国一直是支持极端主义意识形态慈善机构的主要资助者。此外，一些沙特政府官员与部分袭击者有明显关联。
Not long after the attacks, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives, a troubling set of facts emerged. A majority of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. Although the Saudi government has denied involvement and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials individually funded al Qaeda, the country had been a major backer of charities that supported extremist ideologies. And some Saudi government officials had apparent connections to some of the attackers.
2002年，遇难者家属开始起诉沙特王国后，沙特以主权豁免原则为由寻求驳回诉讼，该原则认为政府只有在同意的情况下才能被起诉。利雅得辩称，1976年的《外国主权豁免法》仅允许对国务院认定的恐怖主义支持国家提起诉讼。
When victims’ families began suing the kingdom in 2002, Saudi Arabia moved to have the claims dismissed based on the concept of sovereign immunity, which holds that a government may only be sued with its consent. Riyadh argued that a 1976 law — the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act — only allowed lawsuits to be filed against countries on the State Department’s list of terrorism sponsors.
2005年，联邦地区法院支持沙特的观点，因沙特不在该名单上。这引发了长达十年的法律纠缠，让家属们陷入不确定性之中。最终，国会介入了。
In 2005, the federal district court agreed with Saudi Arabia, which wasn’t on the list. This prompted another decade of legal wrangling and uncertainty for the families. Finally, Congress intervened.
2016年，国会以压倒性的两党多数票通过了《反恐怖主义赞助商司法法案》，推翻了奥巴马总统的否决。该法案取消了恐怖主义支持国家必须在国务院名单上的要求。
Overwhelming bipartisan majorities passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act in 2016 over President Obama’s veto. The 2016 law removed the requirement that a state sponsor of terror must be on the State Department’s list.
2016年法案还明确规定，外国政府可因“在美国发生的国际恐怖主义行为”被起诉索赔金钱损害赔偿。关键在于，伤害必须是由该外国政府的不法行为，或其“任何官方、雇员或代理人”在“职务范围内”实施的行为造成的，即使该行为发生在美国境外。
The 2016 law also made clear that a foreign government can be sued for monetary damages for “an act of international terrorism in the United States.”Critically, the injury must be caused by a wrongful act of the foreign government or “any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state,” while “acting within the scope” of his employment, even if the act occurred outside the U.S.
9·11事件遇难者家属长期主张，法赫德·萨尼（Fahad al-Thumairy）和奥马尔·巴尤米（Omar al-Bayoumi）——分别是一名沙特外交官和涉嫌情报人员——帮助了南加州的两名劫机者。法律程序于2017年恢复，两人均成为法律争议的核心。沙特阿拉伯再次试图以主权豁免为由要求驳回该诉讼，但2025年8月，一家地区法院裁定该诉讼可以继续进行。
The 9/11 families have long argued that Fahad al-Thumairy and Omar al-Bayoumi — a Saudi diplomat and alleged intelligence asset, respectively — helped two of the hijackers in Southern California. The legal process resumed in 2017, and both men have become central to the legal dispute. Saudi Arabia, once again, sought to get the lawsuit dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, but in August 2025, a district court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed.
地区法院认定，有足够证据支持，为确立管辖权，主张巴尤米于2000年与两名基地组织劫机者会面，并帮助他们开设银行账户和寻找公寓。法院还认定，巴尤米和萨尼“在某种程度上为了同一目标而协调行动”。法院强调，这只是为确立管辖权而作出的初步认定，家属仍须在审判中证明其主张。
The district court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support, for jurisdictional purposes, a claim that al-Bayoumi met with two of the al Qaeda hijackers in 2000 and helped them open a bank account and find an apartment. It also held that al-Bayoumi and al-Thumairy coordinated “to some degree for the same goal.”The court emphasized that this was a preliminary finding to establish jurisdiction, and the families must still prove their claims at trial.
沙特阿拉弗向第二巡回上诉法院提起上诉，该法院于10月7日举行了口头辩论。代表沙特阿拉伯的律师告诉法院，“沙特阿拉伯王国从未支持其敌人基地组织对抗其盟友美国。”他还辩称，巴尤米和萨尼的行为不在“雇佣范围”之内，而修订后的法律要求必须满足这一条件，沙特阿拉伯才能对其行为承担责任。他辩称，沙特政府没有人指示他们协助劫机者。
Saudi Arabia appealed to the Second Circuit, which heard oral arguments on Oct. 7. The lawyer representing Saudi Arabia told the court that “the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has never supported its enemy, al Qaeda, against its ally, the United States.”He also argued that al-Bayoumi and al-Thumairy were not acting within the “scope of employment,” which the amended law requires before Saudi Arabia can be held responsible for their conduct. He argued that no one in the Saudi government directed them to assist the hijackers.
上诉法官表示，这些问题困难而复杂。据报道，案件相关律师预计要到明年才会有裁决。然而，国会10年前修改法律，正是为了给家属一条检验其主张的途径，这些主张在法庭上可能胜诉，也可能败诉。
The appellate judges indicated that the issues are difficult and complex. Lawyers involved in the case reportedly do not expect a ruling until next year. Yet Congress changed the law 10 years ago precisely to give the families a pathway to test their claims, which may or may not prevail in court.
无论结果如何，家属——以及更广泛的全国民众——都应得到一个严谨、公正和公开的法律程序所能带来的了结。
Whatever the outcome, families — and the nation more broadly — deserve the closure that a rigorous, fair and open legal process can bring.
布莱斯·普尔（Bryce Poole）是“推进美国自由”（Advancing American Freedom）组织下梅斯法治研究所（Meese Institute for the Rule of Law）的高级法律研究员。
Bryce Poole is a senior legal fellow in the Meese Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom