By Haggai Carmon

Yesterday, June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review a ruling made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that confirmed Saudi Arabian immunity to U.S. terrorism-related lawsuits. As such Saudi sovereign immunity remains protected.

In representation of the Obama administration, the U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed a friend of the court brief on May 29 encouraging the Supreme Court not to review the case.

The plaintiffs are victims of the 9/11 attacks who are seeking compensation from the government they believe funded the terrorists. They allege that Saudi Arabia financed and had control over the Islamic charities that operated as money launderers for Al Qaeda. Among the defendants are the Saudi government and several senior members of the Saudi royal family.

The plaintiffs support their allegations with U.S. Treasury reports and declassified government intelligence documents that reportedly show how Islamic charities, individual financiers and financial institutions funded Al Qaeda.

They also refer to statements from Clinton administration officials, who said the Saudis were told before 9/11 that the charities and other institutions were being used to finance Al Qaeda, and that the Saudis did not act on the information. One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has also submitted a deposition from a former Al Qaeda commander who testified that his group got support from a well-known Saudi government charity.

Although the 1996 exception to the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) allows U.S. civil lawsuits against officially designated state sponsors of terrorism, Saudi Arabia has not been designated as such by the State Department.

In 2005, a Manhattan federal district judge – Judge Richard Conway Casey – ruled that Saudi Arabia and accused members of the royal family had immunity and could not be named as defendants. The Second Circuit court upheld Casey’s ruling in 2008.

The other defendants named in the case – Islamic charities, individual financiers and financial institutions – are not covered by the immunity ruling, but the standing decision does stipulate that defendants must have some presence in the U.S. to be included in the lawsuit, which means additional defendants may still be excluded from the case.