Judge George B. Daniels stayed all proceedings against Saudi Arabia on November 5, 2025 pending Second Circuit review of its immunity appeal. He granted the Kingdom's motion to halt district-court pretrial work while the higher court decides whether the case can proceed at all.
A stay is a court-ordered pause. The pause affects thousands of 9/11 families and survivors in multidistrict litigation 03 MDL 1570, a grouped federal case. According to the Justia Dockets filing, the order specifically stays all proceedings involving the Kingdom in case 1:2001cv10132 through the memorandum decision. It delays discovery and trial preparation against Saudi Arabia, not a payout.
Official resources:
- Read the official notice from Tlblog — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
- Read the original report from Devdiscourse — Use this primary source to review the complete report.
Table of Contents
- What the stay stopped
- Why immunity gets decided first
- What the jurisdiction fight involves
- What families should expect now
What the stay stopped
Saudi Arabia filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 11215, then moved, ECF No. 11226, to stop district-court pretrial proceedings against it during the appeal. Daniels granted that halt for claims against the Kingdom.
Other case activity outside those claims can follow separate orders. The appeal challenges Daniels' August 28, 2025 order denying Saudi Arabia's renewed motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule 12(b)(1). That rule tests whether a court has power to hear a claim. Until the Second Circuit rules, the trial court will not move the Saudi claims toward trial.
Why immunity gets decided first
Sovereign immunity protects a foreign state from suit unless an exception applies. An immunity appeal is called interlocutory because it happens before trial. Courts often pause the underlying case because immunity decides whether trial should happen at all.
Here the claimed exception comes from the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a law that permits certain terrorism-related suits against foreign states. According to the Transnational Litigation Blog, Daniels held in August that plaintiffs supplied enough facts to invoke that exception in the August jurisdiction ruling. He also held Saudi Arabia failed to prove by preponderance that it did not apply.
What the jurisdiction fight involves
The jurisdictional evidence centered on Saudi-linked men Omar al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy. Plaintiffs allege they provided logistical help, meetings, and support to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after their arrival in California. Those allegations concern whether the court may hear the case, not whether Saudi Arabia is liable.
That limit matters for readers looking for compensation news. According to Associated Press reporting via Devdiscourse, neither the August denial nor the November stay decided liability in the order allowing the lawsuits to proceed. No court has entered final judgment that Saudi Arabia caused or funded the attacks.
What families should expect now
The stay directly affects families and survivors pursuing Saudi Arabia in the coordinated 9/11 litigation. It pauses their path to further discovery and trial preparation.
It does not create a settlement, claims deadline, or payment program. According to the Anderson Kill litigation update, affirmance would send the case back for extended trial work while reversal would end the Saudi claims in the litigation timeline assessment.
- If affirmed, the case returns for trial preparation that counsel estimate could take about two more years.
- If reversed, Saudi immunity would be restored and claims against it would end.
- Families should watch plaintiff-counsel updates and court docket entries, not claims filing sites.