When the first plane hit the North Tower on September 11, Charles Wolfe’s beloved wife, Catherine, 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. Wolfe 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 the New York Sun. “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. Wolfe 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?

“The primary impediment has been one of collecting any funds that were awarded as a result of a default judgment, which is often what transpires. Most foreign states whose immunity was stripped for terrorist activities rarely appear in U.S. courts or often cease defending themselves once their immunity is confirmed as being absent and have default judgments issued against them,” attorney Mark Zaid, who helped rewrite the 1996 amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, tells the Sun. 

“Generally speaking, these countries, given we often do not have active relationships with them, do not have funds that are attachable. Diplomatic property is usually considered off-limits, and foreign countries do not typically recognize judgments obtained by default.”

Iran: Billions in Judgments, Patchwork in Payouts

Iran has been the most frequent target of terrorism-related lawsuits in American courts since its 1984 designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Plaintiffs have accused Tehran of backing groups like Hezbollah and Hamas in attacks against Americans. 

One landmark case stemmed from the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which killed 241 American service members. Courts held Iran liable and awarded billions to the victims’ families, but collecting the money proved to be difficult. Some seized frozen Iranian assets or received partial payments from the United States Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund, established in 2015, but many awards are unpaid. 

In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld turning over nearly $2 billion in Iranian assets at Citibank to the Beirut families — a rare victory that underscored how symbolic judgments often exceed what victims can actually recover. Iran still owed victims at least $53 billion. 

Libya: Lockerbie and Beyond

Libya under Moammar Gadhafi became the focus of landmark American terrorism lawsuits following the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. 

After Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in the 1990s, families sued Tripoli for its role in the attack. The cases led to a 2003 settlement in which Libya accepted responsibility and agreed to pay $2.7 billion in compensation. To resolve all outstanding claims, the United States and Libya signed a broader settlement on August 14, 2008, under which Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund created by the Libyan Claims Resolution Act. 

The agreement granted Libya legal immunity and helped restore diplomatic ties — an outcome driven by Mr. Gadhafi’s push to end sanctions and rejoin the international community.

Sudan: Al-Qaeda, Embassy Bombings, and Settlements

Sudan faced major American lawsuits accusing it of supporting terrorism during Omar al-Bashir’s rule, when it sheltered Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the 1990s. The most significant cases stemmed from the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. 

United States courts found Sudan liable and awarded victims about $10.2 billion, though collection proved impossible while Sudan remained a state sponsor of terrorism. After Bashir’s ouster in 2019, Sudan’s transitional government sought to lift that designation and, in 2020, agreed to pay $335 million to compensate American victims of the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, and the 2008 killing of USAID worker John Granville. 

The funds were transferred in 2021, and Washington removed Sudan from the terrorism list in December of that year. Under the Sudan Claims Resolution Act, payments ranging from $170,000 to $10 million were distributed. That was far less than the court awards but enough to close the claims and restore Khartoum’s standing with Washington. 

Syria: Support for Hezbollah and Hamas

Syria, designated a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979, has faced numerous lawsuits for supporting groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Victims and their families have sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, arguing that Syria’s funding, training, and shelter enabled terrorist attacks. 

United States courts have issued billions in default judgments against Damascus for acts including bombings and the torture of American citizens under the rule of both Hafez and Bashar Assad; however, enforcement has been nearly impossible due to Syria’s limited assets in the United States. 

Many victims do receive partial payments through the United States Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which distributes seized or forfeited assets. Despite billions paid out, most judgments against Syria are unpaid.

North Korea: Torture, Hostages, and Otto Warmbier

North Korea has faced multiple lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s terrorism exception over its treatment of detainees and support of terrorism. The most notable case involved Otto Warmbier, an American student arrested in Pyongyang in 2016 and returned to the U.S. in a coma before his 2017 death. 

His family won a $501 million default judgment in 2018, but collecting it has proven nearly impossible given North Korea’s lack of American assets. Similar default judgments have followed, including a $2.3 billion award in 2021 to the USS Pueblo crew for torture and hostage-taking. 

While victims may receive partial compensation through the United States Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund, none of the judgments against Pyongyang has led to a direct payment from the regime.

Cuba: A Complicated Record

Cuba was designated a state sponsor of terrorism for decades before its removal in 2015 and re-designation in 2021. During those periods, Americans sued Havana for its alleged role in supporting insurgencies and harboring fugitives. Some families of terrorism victims won default judgments in United States courts, yet Cuba’s limited assets in the United States restricted enforcement.

In a few cases, families were able to collect by seizing Cuban funds frozen in American banks. For the most part, however, judgments against Cuba are unpaid, caught in the broader tug-of-war of U.S.-Cuban relations.

The Taliban and Afghanistan: Uncharted Territory

After the September 11 attacks, victims’ families sued to hold the Taliban responsible for sheltering al-Qaeda. In Havlish v. Bin Laden, Taliban, and al-Qaeda, filed in 2002, plaintiffs won a roughly $6 billion default judgment in 2011. Similar suits, including Owens v. Taliban, produced additional multi-billion-dollar awards without Taliban participation. 

Families of service members killed or wounded in Afghanistan have also secured large judgments under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Enforcement has proven impossible. The Taliban is not recognized as the government of Afghanistan and held no attachable American assets while out of power for two decades. The issue resurfaced after the group’s capture of Kabul in 2021, when the Biden administration froze about $7 billion in Afghan central bank assets held at the Federal Reserve. 

September 11 families sought to claim those funds. But Judge George Daniels of the Southern District of New York ruled in 2022 that the assets were protected by sovereign immunity because they belonged to Afghanistan, not the illegitimate Taliban regime. 

Roughly half of the assets were later placed in a Swiss-based humanitarian trust to be used for the benefit of the Afghan people, while the remainder are still frozen. As a result, American victims hold some of the most significant terrorism judgments ever issued against a non-state actor but no compensation has been paid, underscoring the legal and diplomatic limits of pursuing the Taliban in American courts.

Justice on Paper, Frustration in Reality

Across decades of litigation, American victims of terrorism have won billions in court judgments against foreign governments, but most of those awards have never been collected. Only in cases where diplomacy aligned with political interests, such as in Libya’s 2008 and Sudan’s 2020 settlements, have victims received meaningful compensation. For others, sovereign immunity, a lack of assets, or the refusal by hostile regimes to pay has rendered the verdicts largely symbolic. 

What needs to change?

“It would be helpful if the U.S. government were required by law to help execute the judgments against terrorist states, or at least if a country that has a judgment against it wishes to engage in business within the U.S., it must first address the outstanding judgment,” Mr. Zaid said. 

“The U.S. government was always opposed to victims pursuing their perpetrators, particularly because foreign governments were either responsible for the incident or were financially supporting those who caused it. It was perceived that we, as civilians, were interfering with the foreign policy interests of the United States.”

He hopes this approach is changing. 

“The reality was that we were helping strengthen U.S. foreign policy by taking strong stands against those countries or organizations that violated internationally accepted rules of law and ensured that individuals were not forgotten as governments sought to forge new relationships that disregarded history,” Mr. Zaid said.