Saudi vs. Iran: Two 9/11 Lawsuits, Two Tracks
Why one case can reach the USVSST Fund and the other cannot

Back to Articles

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and its two different doors

Behind every docket number here is a family still living with September 11, so this page stays with what the source materials actually say. Families often hear that Iran and Saudi Arabia are both being sued over September 11 and assume the two cases are one fight. They are not. They share one docket, but they rest on two different parts of the same immunity law, and that difference changes what each case can do.

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), a foreign country is presumptively immune from being sued in a United States court. A family can reach that country only if a specific statutory exception strips the immunity away. Two FSIA exceptions matter to 9/11 families, and they are two different doors.

The first is the state-sponsor-of-terrorism exception, 28 U.S.C. Section 1605A (and its older predecessor, Section 1605(a)(7)). It removes immunity only from a country the United States has formally designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This is the exception the USVSST Fund is built around.

The second is JASTA's exception, 28 U.S.C. Section 1605B, titled Responsibility of foreign states for international terrorism against the United States. It removes immunity from any foreign country, with no designation required, in a suit for money damages for physical injury, property damage, or death that occurs in the United States, caused by an act of international terrorism here and a wrongful act by that state or its agent. States stay immune for claims based on mere negligence or omissions.

One is a narrow door that only a designated country walks through. The other is a wider door built to reach a country that was never designated. Which door a claim uses decides almost everything that follows.

The Iran track: the state-sponsor exception, and how its judgments reach the USVSST Fund

Iran's path runs on the state-sponsor exception, and Iran is a designated state sponsor of terrorism. For 9/11 families, the qualifying judgments are against Iran and its instrumentalities. The Fund's own example is a judgment against Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. Because Iran is designated, a United States district court can find it not immune under Section 1605A and enter a compensatory-damages judgment. That judgment is what qualifies a family for the USVSST Fund.

Iran does not show up to defend these cases. The judgments are default judgments, and a default judgment against a foreign state counts once service of process is completed and a required notice period has run. All appeals have to be finished before a judgment is treated as final.

This is live right now. In MDL 1570, the court's July 9, 2026 order authorized partial final judgments under Rule 54(b), and on July 22, 2026 the Clerk entered eight of them against Iran, across member cases including Jimenez, Hemenway, Amato, Burnett, and Arias.

Here is the part that is easy to misread. A judgment is not a payment. Iran is absent and does not voluntarily pay. What these judgments do is make the families enforceable judgment creditors, which is the status a family needs before any attachment or turnover fight can even try to reach an asset. By themselves they touch no specific account or property. Holding a judgment and holding money are two different things.

The Saudi track: JASTA, still being litigated, no judgment

Saudi Arabia's path does not run on the state-sponsor exception, because Saudi Arabia is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism. Its path runs on JASTA, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which added 28 U.S.C. Section 1605B when it became law as Public Law 114-222 on September 28, 2016.

JASTA exists precisely to reach a foreign country for an act of international terrorism on United States soil whether or not that country is a designated state sponsor. That is why it was the tool available against Saudi Arabia when the ordinary state-sponsor exception was not. It lets United States nationals bring their claims where immunity has been removed, and it keeps a foreign state immune for claims based on mere negligence or omissions.

So the Saudi claims and the Iran claims live under the same case caption but rest on a different statute and a different legal theory.

What this page will not do is predict how the Saudi case comes out. What is grounded in the source material is limited, and here it is exactly: the Saudi track is still being litigated, it has not produced a judgment against Saudi Arabia, and it has not produced a fund or any payment for these families. The finer points of where the Saudi case stands belong with that litigation's counsel, not with a planning explainer. A court being able to hear a case is not the same as the families winning it.

What the distinction means for the USVSST Fund

The USVSST Fund's eligibility rule, 34 U.S.C. Section 20144, is where the two tracks stop being interchangeable. Eligibility turns on holding a qualifying final judgment: an enforceable United States district-court judgment awarding compensatory damages, arising from acts of international terrorism, against a foreign state that was designated a state sponsor of terrorism and found not immune under Section 1605A. For 9/11 families, that judgment is the one against Iran.

Read that requirement closely. It names Section 1605A, the state-sponsor door. A recovery on the Saudi track would come through JASTA and Section 1605B against a country that is not designated, so it would not meet the Fund's eligibility test and would not flow through the USVSST Fund. The Fund's own materials make the same point from the other direction: money from a matter that solely involves a terrorist group does not qualify for deposit either.

A qualifying Iran judgment still has to clear the Special Master and the Fund's pro-rata payment math, which applies individual and family caps and subtracts recoveries from other sources. Payment is a share, not a fixed sum. And whether a person filed with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund does not decide USVSST eligibility. They are separate federal programs on separate legal bases.

What a distribution could mean for your plan

Here is where an investment adviser comes in, and where a law firm does not. If your family holds an Iran judgment and a USVSST distribution eventually reaches you, it does not arrive as a steady paycheck. It arrives as a one-time sum, often after years of waiting, and what you do with it is a planning decision, not a legal one.

Three questions tend to matter more than the headline number. First, the tax character. A USVSST payment is not automatically tax-free. The treatment depends on what the payment is for, and the Fund issues no 1099 and takes no position on tax, so that is a question for a qualified tax professional who can look at your specific award. Second, the effect on any needs-based benefits a family member receives, where a one-time sum can change eligibility. Third, the sequencing. A one-time recovery lands into whatever plan already exists, and fitting it to your income, your timeline, and the rest of your assets is the actual work.

None of that requires you to predict how the cases come out, and none of it is legal advice. It is the money side of an event whose legal side belongs with your attorney.

The moving parts to watch

Several pieces of this are live and could shift. A short watch list.

The state-sponsor list is current, not permanent. As of a July 2026 reading, four countries are designated: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria. Saudi Arabia is not on it, which is the whole reason the Saudi claims need JASTA. Separately, the State Department began a process in July 2026 to rescind Syria's designation. Syria's status does not touch the Saudi or Iran analysis, and the legal effect of any rescission on existing judgments is a question for counsel, not one to assume.

The Iran enforcement fights are live and undecided. Holding a judgment is the start of a separate contest over Iranian assets, where the families and other creditor groups are pursuing overlapping property. Who gets paid, in what order, and whether particular assets belong to Iran are all reserved or pending. In those fights, what a party alleges is not what a court has ruled.

And the Fund itself moves in rounds, not lump sums. A round being announced is not the same as a payment being deposited, and no per-family amount can be worked backward from an estimate.

Common questions

Are the Iran and Saudi Arabia 9/11 cases the same lawsuit?

They share one docket, MDL 1570, but not one legal track. The Iran claims proceed under the FSIA state-sponsor exception, 28 U.S.C. Section 1605A, which requires a terrorism designation Iran has. The Saudi claims proceed under JASTA, 28 U.S.C. Section 1605B, which requires no designation and reaches a country that lacks one. One umbrella caption, two statutes, two theories.

Would a Saudi Arabia recovery be paid through the USVSST Fund?

No. USVSST eligibility requires a qualifying final judgment against a foreign state that was designated a state sponsor of terrorism and found not immune under Section 1605A. A JASTA recovery against a country that is not designated would not meet that test and would not flow through the Fund. Whether a particular judgment qualifies is a question for your own attorney.

Is there a judgment against Saudi Arabia?

No. In the source material, the only judgments are the Section 1605A partial final judgments against Iran, entered in MDL 1570. The Saudi track is still being litigated and has produced no judgment, fund, or payment for these families. This page makes no prediction about how the Saudi case turns out.

Does an Iran judgment mean money is on the way?

A judgment is not a payment. It makes families enforceable judgment creditors, which is the status needed before any attachment or turnover fight over Iranian assets can even be attempted, and those fights are undecided. Separately, any USVSST distribution is pro-rata, subject to the Special Master and the Fund's caps. Holding a judgment and receiving money are two different steps.

Is a USVSST payment tax-free?

Not as a blanket rule. USVSST tax treatment is character-dependent, the Fund issues no 1099, and it takes no position on tax. This is one to route to a qualified tax professional who can look at your specific award, rather than assume a single answer applies to everyone.