A federal court in the United States has issued an order requiring two senior associates of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to begin producing evidence in connection with a lawsuit filed by former senior Saudi intelligence officer Saad al-Jabri. Al-Jabri claims he survived a conspiracy orchestrated by the Saudi government aimed at silencing him. The court’s ruling marks a notable shift, with legal experts suggesting that U.S. courts are increasingly open to taking action against foreign powers accused of human rights violations, a trend that contrasts with past decades when these cases were often dismissed.
Saad al-Jabri’s ongoing legal battle stems from a purported assassination attempt that took place in October 2018. The Saudi government has dismissed these allegations as baseless. This incident coincided with the alleged murder of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was known for his critical views regarding the crown prince. U.S., U.N., and other organizations have accused Saudis affiliated with Prince Mohammed of involvement in Khashoggi’s killing.
The lawsuit contends that the attempt on al-Jabri’s life involved Saud al-Qahtani, a former royal court adviser, who has been sanctioned by the Biden administration for his alleged part in Khashoggi’s assassination. The recent ruling reflects a series of decisions believed to empower human rights advocates and dissidents, suggesting a possible change in judicial attitude toward cases involving allegations of transgressions by foreign authorities, even those that occurred outside U.S. territory.
Yana Gorokhovskaia, a research director at Freedom House, emphasized that the evolving role of U.S. courts presents an opportunity for holding foreign governments accountable. She acknowledged, however, that the legal path remains challenging, particularly when a significant portion of the claimed abuses occurs outside the United States. She noted that the current openness represents an improvement compared to previous years.
Khalid al-Jabri, a doctor and the son of Saad al-Jabri, expressed hope that the court’s ruling would not only assist in addressing contemporary victims’ grievances but also serve as a deterrent for oppressive regimes contemplating transnational repression within the U.S.
While the Saudi Embassy in Washington has acknowledged receiving inquiries regarding the case from the media, there has been no immediate response. Legal representatives for Bader al-Asaker, one of the accused, opted not to comment, while those for Saud al-Qahtani did not provide any responses either. Past attempts by lawyers for the crown prince have labeled al-Jabri a liar, arguing he is wanted in Saudi Arabia for corruption and claiming no evidence exists to support the assassination conspiracy allegations.
The Saudi government maintains that Khashoggi’s murder constituted a “rogue operation” conducted without the crown prince’s awareness. Both Khashoggi’s killing and al-Jabri’s accusations emerged from a broader clampdown that occurred following King Salman and Prince Mohammed’s ascent to power in Saudi Arabia, marked by the detention of critics and individuals from the previous regime, often under the guise of anti-corruption measures.
Al-Jabri sought asylum in Canada, where he alleges a team, dubbed the “Tiger Squad,” was dispatched by the crown prince to kill him. The plot was reportedly foiled when Canadian officials intervened, although the Canadian authorities have been reticent in commenting further. Investigations by Canadian law enforcement have deemed the allegations credible and are ongoing. The Saudi government has since detained al-Jabri’s younger children in what the family perceives as pressure for their father’s return.
Previous attempts to hold Saudi officials accountable in U.S. courts for the cases involving Khashoggi and al-Jabri have faced significant hurdles. Courts often ruled that Prince Mohammed held sovereign immunity under international law, effectively shielding him from legal repercussions. Civil judgments against foreign officials tend to carry limited practical impact, primarily affecting the reputational standing of those involved. Notably, recent court rulings have recognized that the alleged conspiracy against al-Jabri took place in Canada rather than the U.S., despite claims that Saudi informants within the U.S. tracked his movements.
Earlier this summer, a federal appeals court overturned a lower court’s dismissal of al-Jabri’s lawsuit, granting him legal rights to gather evidence to potentially support his claims in the U.S. Federal courts mandated al-Qahtani and al-Asaker to begin submitting all pertinent communications and messages by November 4.
Ingrid Brunk, an expert in international law, called the situation a significant development, noting that U.S. courts have recently seen a resurgence in human rights lawsuits aimed at foreign entities. U.S. courts have traditionally been popular venues for these kinds of cases, but restrictive Supreme Court rulings over the past two decades had limited recourse for plaintiffs with foreign connections.
There’s hope that the momentum in the legal arena will foster more robust human rights cases, particularly with innovative legal strategies being implemented. Khalid al-Jabri emphasized that their family seeks justice rather than financial compensation in this lawsuit, as well as the freedom of his siblings detained by the Saudi government.
