Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd District upheld lower courts’ rulings that Saudi Arabia, four of its senior princes, a banker, and a Saudi-based charity could not be sued in American courts for the tragedy of 9/11. The court’s decision [67-page PDF] is worth reading as it gives a good history of the development of US laws governing sovereign immunity as well as a good discussion of the particulars in this case. The decision also provides interesting information about how the laws that remove immunity for specific kinds of actions (including state-sponsored terrorism) have developed. The laws, most recently updated this year, require that for a state to be sued under a ‘terrorism exception’, that state must be on State Department’s list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’.

The court also noted that the princes involved in the suit—Salman, Sultan, Nayef, and Turki Al-Faisal—might have been negligent in overseeing how their contributions to various charities were being spent. But that is not enough to sustain a suit that requires, by law, that they donated with the specific intent to harm Americans.

It has long been my belief that Saudi Arabia and many of its citizens—princes included—had been far too trusting of individuals and groups who claimed to be doing ‘charitable work’. They paid too little attention to how the money was actually being spent and as a result, money went to very bad places. But carelessness is not generally considered criminal negligence.

Court: Saudi Arabia not liable in Sept. 11 attacks
LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Saudi Arabia and four of its princes cannot be held liable in the Sept. 11 attacks even if they were aware that charitable donations to Muslim groups would be funneled to al-Qaida.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S. residents.

Justin Timothy Green, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he was disappointed with the ruling and the plaintiffs were considering an appeal because the decision would make it harder to collect from others.
…

UPDATE: The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article that focuses on the complaints of various plaintiffs’ law firms and their desire to seek further appeal, perhaps to the US Supreme Court. I find it unpersuasive to argue, as one of the firms does, that the conduct of foreign affairs should not be vested in the Executive branch of government. Foreign policy created and executed by the hundreds of members of Congress would be both unworkable and dangerous. The development and execution of foreign policy decisions has, through the Constitution, been put in the exclusive hands of the President, not Congress and not the Courts.

Cozen O’Connor dealt blow in 9/11 lawsuit