N umerous legal and practical obstacles, such as the infeasibility of locating Al Qaeda operatives, stand in the way of victims seeking to establish liability in U.S. courts against, and recover damages from, the terrorists who planned and carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks. Victims, however, have sued numerous individuals and groups with less direct ties to the attackers, including defendants who allegedly provided monetary support to Al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001. In r e Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 , is a consolidated case that includes, among other claims, claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, several Saudi princes, a Saudi banker, and a Saudi charity. Plaintiffs argued that these Saudi defendants played a "critical role" in the September 11 attacks by giving money to Muslim groups, which in turn funded Al Qaeda. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissals of the claims against the Saudi defendants. However, part of the reasoning for the dismissals was later overturned, and the plaintiffs were permitted a second chance to bring their suit against the Saudi government and government-owned charity. This effort also failed on sovereign immunity grounds at the district court, however, and is once again on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. This report explains the legal bases for the dismissals and provides an update to the status of the case. To address some issues involving the interpretation of the FSIA, among other related matters, Congress is considering the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act ( S. 2040 , H.R. 3815 ).This report addresses relevant legislative developments in its final section. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the FSIA) applies to all foreign states and their "agencies and instrumentalities." Immunity for sovereign nations against suits in U.S. courts has a long history and is based on the principle that conflicts with foreign nations are more effectively addressed through diplomatic efforts than through judicial proceedings. Congress passed the FSIA to codify these long-standing principles and to clarify limitations on the scope of immunity that had emerged in international practice. The FSIA contains both a general, presumptive rule against litigation in U.S. courts and a number of exceptions permitting suits. As a general rule, foreign states, together with their agencies and instrumentalities, are "immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and from the states." However, the FSIA authorizes jurisdiction over foreign nations in several exceptions. Namely, a foreign state is not immune from U.S. courts' jurisdiction where (1) the foreign state has waived its immunity; (2) the claim is a specific type of admiralty claim; (3) the claim involves commercial activities; (4) the claim implicates property rights connected with the United States; (5) the claim arises from tortious conduct that occurred in the United States; (6) the claim is made pursuant to an arbitration agreement; or (7) the claim seeks money damages against a designated state sponsor of terrorism for injuries arising from a terrorist act. The exception for designated state sponsors of terrorism provides jurisdiction over cases involving designated "state sponsor[s] of terrorism" in suits involving "personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency." However, the exception seems to apply only to countries designated by the U.S. Department of State as state sponsors of terrorism. This list currently includes Iran, Sudan, and Syria. At the time suit was brought in the In re Terrorist Attacks litigation, the previous terrorism exception remained in force. Before asserting jurisdiction to accept a case, a federal court must establish its authority over the dispute involved and the parties to the litigation. In other words, courts must assert both subject matter jurisdiction over each claim and personal jurisdiction over each defendant in a case. For cases involving foreign defendants, the analyses for subject matter and personal jurisdiction differ according to whether the FSIA applies. For claims by U.S. plaintiffs against foreign non-state defendants to whom the FSIA does not apply—for example, claims against individuals or non-government owned corporations—federal law authorizes subject matter jurisdiction as long as the "amount in controversy" exceeds $75,000. In contrast, for claims against foreign states and their instrumentalities, the FSIA is a jurisdictional gatekeeper. The FSIA denies subject matter jurisdiction over claims against foreign defendants entitled to immunity. Conversely, the FSIA authorizes subject matter jurisdiction over claims in which a foreign state would be entitled to immunity under the FSIA but for the application of an exception. Individual foreign officials are not covered by the FSIA if they are sued in their capacity as individuals, but may be immune from suit under the common law of foreign sovereign immunity. One such defendant, the former president of two of the Saudi-run charities sued for alleged involvement in funding the 9/11 terrorist attacks, prevailed in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against him on the basis of common-law foreign sovereign immunity. Personal jurisdiction is the second threshold hurdle for assertion of judicial authority in cases involving foreign defendants. Whereas subject matter jurisdiction governs courts' power over particular claims, personal jurisdiction governs courts' power over particular defendants. Thus, even if a court establishes jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim, it cannot exercise its authority over a defendant for whom it lacks personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction requires both statutory authority and satisfaction of Fifth Amendment due process standards. As with subject matter jurisdiction, statutory authority for personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants follows one of two distinct routes according to the FSIA's application. If the defendant is a foreign state or its agency or instrumentality, personal jurisdiction is statutorily authorized under the FSIA if subject matter jurisdiction is established. Alternatively, for a defendant who is not a foreign state or its agency or instrumentality, the ordinary procedure for obtaining statutory authority for personal jurisdiction applies; typically, a federal court must find statutory authority for personal jurisdiction in the laws of the state in which it sits. However, constitutional limits apply regardless of a statutory basis for personal jurisdiction. Under the due process clause, personal jurisdiction is constitutional if (1) defendants have had "certain minimum contacts with" the judicial forum attempting to assert jurisdiction, and (2) asserting such jurisdiction "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." The type and quantity of contacts necessary to constitute "minimum contacts" differ according to the type of personal jurisdiction—general or specific—that applies. General jurisdiction, which allows a court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant for any claim, does not require contacts related to the specific claim in the case but instead requires "continuous and systematic" contacts with a forum. Conversely, specific jurisdiction, which limits a court's jurisdiction over a defendant to claims in a particular case, involves no "continuous and systematic" requirement; instead, it requires that a defendant's contacts with the forum "relate to" or "arise out of" the claim at issue in the case. In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) affirmed dismissals of claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a Saudi charity, Saudi princes, and a Saudi banker in In r e Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 . Plaintiffs in the case were victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. They alleged that the Saudi defendants had supported Al Qaeda's financial backers prior to the attacks and were therefore civilly liable for plaintiffs' injuries. However, the court of appeals did not reach the merits of these allegations. Instead, the court held that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over the claims against the Saudi defendants. The legal bases for this holding were lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA and lack of personal jurisdiction. The most significant aspects of the court of appeals' opinion were interpretations of the FSIA, namely (1) its interpretation of "agency or instrumentality" under the FSIA as extending both to the Saudi charity and to individuals sued in their official capacities, and (2) its interpretation of the commercial activities and tort exceptions under the FSIA as having a narrower scope than plaintiffs had advocated. The Supreme Court later abrogated the first of these holdings, and the Second Circuit reversed its own position with respect to the tort exception to foreign sovereign immunity. In December 2013, the Second Circuit ordered these claims against Saudi Arabia and its agencies or instrumentalities be reinstated in the interest of justice to determine whether the tort exception applies. The district court again dismissed the claims based on foreign sovereign immunity, and the case is on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In r e Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 ( In re Terrorist Attacks ) is a case consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion reviewed dismissals of only a subset of the claims at issue in the case. Plaintiffs in In r e Terrorist Attacks are individuals and businesses injured by the September 11 terrorist attacks. They brought claims based on state and federal tort law and various federal laws, including the Torture Victim Protection Act, for injuries suffered as a result of the attacks. The dismissed claims fall into four categories: (1) claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; (2) claims against four Saudi princes in their official capacities; (3) claims against the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovina (the SHC), a charitable organization operated in connection with the Saudi government; and (4) claims against a banker and Saudi princes in their personal capacities.