A U.S. federal court has ordered two top associates of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to turn over evidence in a lawsuit filed by former Saudi intelligence officer Saad al-Jabri. Al-Jabri, who lives in exile in Canada, accuses Saudi Arabia of plotting to assassinate him in 2018, echoing similar allegations tied to the high-profile killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi that same year.
The ruling, which came down in late September, gives al-Jabri a crucial step forward in his long-standing legal battle to hold Saudi officials accountable. According to the court, Saud al-Qahtani, a former royal court adviser sanctioned by the U.S. government for his alleged involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, and Bader al-Asaker, a senior aide to the crown prince, must provide evidence, including digital communications, by early November.
Legal experts and human rights advocates have hailed the ruling as part of a broader shift in U.S. courts’ willingness to hear cases that accuse foreign governments of human rights abuses. For much of the last two decades, such lawsuits had been routinely dismissed by American judges, particularly when they involved incidents that occurred outside the United States. The recent string of favorable rulings in these cases is giving hope to those seeking justice for cross-border human rights abuses.
Yana Gorokhovskaia, research director at the rights group Freedom House, sees the al-Jabri case as part of a growing trend of holding repressive regimes accountable through legal channels. “More and more… it seems like the U.S. courts are an opportunity to directly hold governments accountable,” she said. While acknowledging the uphill battle in pursuing justice, especially in cases where the harassment occurred abroad, Gorokhovskaia noted, “It’s more than we saw, definitely, even a few years ago.”
Saad al-Jabri, a former senior aide to Saudi Arabia’s deposed intelligence chief, Mohammed bin Nayef, alleges that Saudi authorities sought to kill him in October 2018, just weeks after the murder of Khashoggi. Al-Jabri claims that the crown prince dispatched a hit squad, dubbed the “Tiger Squad,” to Canada to eliminate him. The plan was thwarted, he says, when Canadian officials became suspicious of the group’s behavior at the border and conducted an investigation into their luggage.
The lawsuit argues that the plot against al-Jabri was orchestrated by the same officials tied to the killing of Khashoggi, with Saud al-Qahtani allegedly playing a key role in both. Al-Jabri, who served as a top intelligence officer under King Abdullah’s regime, has long been viewed as a significant threat to Crown Prince Mohammed’s consolidation of power. Following the death of King Abdullah in 2015, the Saudi government, under the leadership of King Salman and his son, embarked on a crackdown that saw the arrest of critics, activists, and rival royals. Al-Jabri fled the kingdom, settling in Canada, where he remains in exile.
In addition to the assassination plot, al-Jabri’s family has been subjected to reprisals. Two of his children have been detained in Saudi Arabia since 2020 in what is widely seen as an attempt to force their father to return. “They have detained my siblings as hostages,” said Khalid al-Jabri, Saad’s son, who also lives in exile. “This legal case is about justice for my father and securing freedom for my sister and brother.”
The ruling in the al-Jabri case is part of a series of recent decisions by U.S. courts that have breathed new life into the possibility of holding foreign powers and officials accountable for abuses. For years, efforts to sue Saudi officials for alleged human rights violations, including those linked to Khashoggi’s killing, have been thwarted by legal hurdles, such as sovereign immunity. Prince Mohammed himself has successfully claimed sovereign immunity in previous cases, shielding him from legal consequences for actions carried out in his official capacity.
Despite these challenges, a federal appeals court in Washington reversed a lower court’s decision this summer to dismiss al-Jabri’s claims. The court ruled that al-Jabri was entitled to collect evidence that could support his case, marking a significant shift in how U.S. courts treat cases involving foreign governments. Notably, the court also ordered both al-Qahtani and al-Asaker to turn over relevant communications and documents, including text messages and correspondence from encrypted messaging apps, by November 4.
“It’s an exciting development,” said Ingrid Brunk, an international law professor at Vanderbilt University, who specializes in human rights litigation. “This case has been marked by really good lawyering, and now it’s gaining traction.”
The al-Jabri case is just one of several recent lawsuits targeting foreign officials or governments that have found a foothold in U.S. courts. In August, a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco revived a lawsuit by Chinese dissidents who accused the Chinese government of spying on them through surveillance technology developed by Cisco Systems, an American company. The plaintiffs are targeting Cisco itself, alleging the tech giant knowingly sold China a system that allowed for human rights abuses.
In another high-profile case, a federal jury in Florida ruled this summer that Chiquita Brands, an American banana company, was liable for paying right-wing paramilitary groups in Colombia, which were responsible for civilian killings during the country’s civil conflict. Lawyers described the ruling as a first for holding a U.S. corporation accountable for contributing to foreign human rights abuses.
Human rights lawsuits have also moved forward against Turkey and India in recent months, demonstrating the increasingly receptive stance of U.S. courts to such cases.
According to Brunk, the recent uptick in human rights-related lawsuits reflects not only a change in legal thinking but also the creativity of plaintiffs’ lawyers. “There have been a lot of creative and promising legal approaches that plaintiffs are using to navigate the complex issues of sovereign immunity and jurisdiction,” she said.
Khalid al-Jabri hopes the court ruling in his father’s case will do more than just bring attention to the plight of his family. He believes it will send a strong message to repressive governments worldwide that the U.S. is no longer a safe haven for orchestrating transnational repression. “This will hopefully, in the long run, make oppressive regimes think twice about targeting dissidents or critics on U.S. soil,” he said.
Transnational repression, the practice of governments extending their reach beyond borders to harass, silence, or kill dissidents, has become an increasingly urgent issue for the international community. The assassination of Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 remains one of the most chilling examples of this phenomenon. While the Saudi government has consistently denied that Crown Prince Mohammed had any direct knowledge of the plot to kill Khashoggi, the killing, and the alleged plot against al-Jabri, have cast a long shadow over Saudi Arabia’s international standing.
The U.S. government has taken steps to address transnational repression, particularly after Khashoggi’s murder, with the Biden administration imposing sanctions on individuals involved. However, the prospect of bringing foreign leaders or high-ranking officials to trial remains elusive due to the complex legal protections afforded by sovereign immunity.
Despite the hurdles, the al-Jabri case appears to be moving forward, bolstered by the federal court’s recent ruling. The order requiring al-Qahtani and al-Asaker to hand over their communications marks a significant step in the case, offering the possibility that new evidence could emerge linking Saudi officials to the alleged assassination plot.
While many human rights cases falter due to the lack of concrete evidence, Brunk notes that “the chance to actually obtain direct communication between the defendants could change the trajectory of the case dramatically.”
For Saad al-Jabri and his family, the legal battle is about more than just exposing the alleged actions of Saudi officials. “We’re not seeking financial compensation,” said Khalid al-Jabri. “This is about justice for my father and freedom for my siblings.”
As the November 4 deadline approaches, all eyes are on the court to see whether this case will lead to a broader reckoning for Saudi officials accused of human rights abuses — and if U.S. courts will continue down the path of holding foreign powers accountable for transnational repression.
