Terror Victims Win in Court, But Did Anyone Ever Receive the Money?

When the first plane hit the North Tower on September 11, Charles Wolf’s beloved wife, Katherine, was on the 97th floor, in the direct flight path. The world, as he knew it, changed in an instant.

In the months that followed, Mr. Wolf channeled his grief into fixing what Congress had broken — its initial law, which protected airlines from liability while stripping families of their right to sue.

“They knew the courts would throw it out,” he tells me. “So, they had to fix it.”

The Victim Compensation Fund was created by Congress in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to provide financial support to those who were physically injured or lost loved ones as a result of the attacks or the subsequent cleanup and recovery operations.

It aimed to offer victims and their families an alternative to lengthy litigation, compensating for economic loss, medical expenses, and pain and suffering. Mr. Wolf emerged as one of the fund’s most vocal critics and advocates for reform.

In early 2002, he launched the website Fix the Fund to document his concerns and highlight what he saw as inconsistencies and a lack of transparency in how awards were determined.

The site became a platform for other victims’ families to share their experiences and unite their voices. Mr. Wolf’s persistent and well-informed advocacy ultimately promped the fund’s special master, Kenneth Feinberg, to clarify procedures and make the compensation process more equitable and accountable.

Years later, as first responders grew ill from toxic dust, Mr. Wolf pressed lawmakers for continued accountability and transparency.

Now 24 years on, his fight is far from over and has extended to the courtroom battle to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for its alleged role in the attacks — a pursuit, he says, not just for justice, but to “make sure this kind of support for terrorism never happens again.”

One of the most politically sensitive legal battles in recent years has focused on efforts to hold Saudi Arabia — a key Washington ally — accountable for the September 11 attacks, in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. For years, those cases were blocked by the shield of sovereign immunity.

More broadly, American victims of terrorism and their families have long sought justice not only from the attackers themselves, but also from those foreign governments accused of enabling, financing, or harboring them.

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, foreign states are generally protected from being sued in United States courts. Over time, Congress has carved out narrow exceptions — most notably through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and its later terrorism exception — which permits civil suits against governments formally designated by Washington as state sponsors of terrorism. Saudi Arabia is not among them.

In 2016, the passage of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act forged a new pathway, allowing families of September 11 victims to pursue claims against foreign governments accused of supporting terrorism on American soil, effectively reviving the long-stalled cases against Saudi Arabia.

Plaintiffs have argued that individuals or charities tied to the Saudi government provided material support to al-Qaeda and the hijackers — allegations the kingdom has consistently denied.

Saudi Arabia has defended itself in court rather than defaulting, distinguishing these suits from other terrorism cases that led to large default judgments. The litigation is ongoing, with courts allowing parts of the case to proceed but no final damages have been awarded or paid.

Beyond Saudi Arabia, American lawsuits have led to landmark judgments against countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. In more recent years, plaintiffs have attempted to hold the Taliban and Afghanistan accountable in court, raising novel questions about the boundaries of state responsibility.

While these judgments often reach into the billions of dollars, the burning question persists: Does the money ever materialize?