Lawsuits involving Sudan are moving on four fronts at once: a landmark $21 million civil judgment against French bank BNP Paribas for helping fund atrocities under Omar al-Bashir, International Criminal Court prosecutions tied to Darfur and the current civil war, a settled cluster of terrorism claims against Sudan itself with one carve-out still active, and a federal court fight over the Trump administration’s attempt to end Temporary Protected Status for South Sudanese nationals. Here is where each stands.
The BNP Paribas Verdict for Sudanese Refugees
On October 17, 2025, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found BNP Paribas liable for enabling genocidal violence in Sudan and awarded $20.75 million to three Sudanese refugees: Entesar Osman Kashef ($7.3 million), Turjuman Adam ($6.75 million), and Abulgasim Abdalla ($6.7 million).1Forbes. BNP Paribas To Pay 20 Million Damages for Complicity in Sudan Atrocities The five-week trial, presided over by Judge Alvin Hellerstein, turned on whether the bank’s financial services were a “natural and adequate cause” of the harm plaintiffs suffered during the Bashir regime’s ethnic cleansing, mass rape, and torture between 2002 and 2008.2Hausfeld. Historic Human Rights Verdict: Jury Awards $20M-Plus to Sudanese Refugees in Landmark Genocide Litigation The jury deliberated about four hours before returning a unanimous verdict.3Los Angeles Times. US Jury Issues $20M Verdict Against French Bank BNP Paribas Over Sudanese Atrocities
The suit, filed in 2016, alleged that BNP Paribas designed schemes through its Geneva office giving Sudan’s government access to billions of U.S. dollars, circumventing American sanctions and financing what plaintiffs called a “war economy.”4Harvard Law Review. Kashef v. BNP Paribas S.A. The case grew directly out of the bank’s 2014 guilty plea for processing more than $8.8 billion in illegal transactions on behalf of entities in Sudan, Iran, and Cuba, roughly $6.4 billion of it Sudanese.5U.S. Department of Justice. BNP Paribas Agrees to Plead Guilty and Pay $8.9 Billion for Illegally Processing Financial Transactions The district court initially dismissed the civil case, but the Second Circuit reversed in 2019, and Judge Hellerstein certified a class in April 2024 covering Sudanese refugees and asylees who lived in Sudan or South Sudan between November 1997 and December 2011.6U.S. Supreme Court. Brief in Opposition, Kashef v. BNP Paribas, No. 24-628
Post-Verdict Motions and the Appeal
BNP Paribas moved to reverse the verdict in November 2025, arguing the award was inconsistent with Swiss law (which governs the claims) and that the bank was prevented from introducing important evidence. The bank also accused plaintiffs’ attorneys of coaching prospective class members to submit falsified claims. Judge Hellerstein rejected the coaching allegations as “frivolous” on November 12, 2025.7Law360. Kashef et al v. BNP Paribas SA et al Case Articles On January 7, 2026, he entered final judgment for $21 million after adding pre-judgment interest and declined to reduce the amount.8Law360. BNP Can’t Undo $21M Verdict in Sudan Refugee Case
BNP Paribas has appealed to the Second Circuit, contending the trial court misinterpreted Swiss law and that the verdict “wouldn’t stand in Switzerland.” In a notable turn, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York backed the bank’s appeal as of June 2026, arguing the trial judge gave insufficient deference to the Swiss government’s interpretation of its own laws.9New York Law Journal. BNP Paribas Tells US Appeals Court That Landmark $21M Human Rights Verdict Conflicts With Swiss Law The appeal is pending.
What the Verdict Means for the Rest of the Class
The October 2025 trial was a bellwether for a certified class of more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees and asylees in the United States.10Financial Times. BNP Paribas Ordered to Pay Sudanese Plaintiffs The verdict does not automatically translate into individual payouts for those class members. Class counsel is working to apply the jury’s findings on BNP Paribas’s liability to the wider class.11Hausfeld. Kashef v. BNP Paribas Sudan Human Rights Lawsuit Class members who wanted to seek compensation had to opt in and complete a questionnaire by July 1, 2025.12PR Newswire. Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights
Terrorism Claims Against Sudan and the 2020 Settlement
A separate line of cases targeted the Republic of Sudan itself over its alleged support for al-Qaeda, tied to the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen. U.S. courts entered default judgments totaling roughly $10.2 billion against Sudan, including $4.3 billion in punitive damages the Supreme Court upheld in Opati v. Republic of Sudan in 2020.13Southwestern Law School. The US-Sudan Claims Settlement Those judgments were largely unenforceable because Sudan had few seizable U.S. assets.
In 2020, Sudan agreed to pay $335 million to compensate victims of the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack, and the 2008 killing of a USAID employee in exchange for diplomatic normalization.14Sudan Embassy. Sudan and United States Execute Historic Bilateral Agreement Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally rescinded Sudan’s State Sponsor of Terrorism designation on December 8, 2020, and the funds were placed in escrow by March 2021. Congress codified the deal in the Sudan Claims Resolution Act of December 2020, which restored Sudan’s sovereign immunity, authorized an additional $150 million for foreign-national victims, and extended the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund through 2039. The act carved out one exception: pending litigation by victims and families of the September 11 attacks in a New York multidistrict proceeding.13Southwestern Law School. The US-Sudan Claims Settlement
That carve-out is now the only opening. In Mark v. Republic of Sudan, the family of an American killed in a 2016 Hamas attack in Israel sued Sudan for allegedly providing material support to Hamas. The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal in July 2023, holding that the Sudan Claims Resolution Act stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over terrorism claims against Sudan not involving September 11.15FindLaw. Mark v. Republic of the Sudan The Supreme Court denied review in April 2024, leaving the jurisdictional bar in place.16U.S. Supreme Court. Docket for Mark v. Republic of Sudan, No. 23-708 For anyone considering a new terrorism suit against Sudan, non-9/11 claims are closed.
ICC Cases: A First Conviction and New Investigations
The International Criminal Court has investigated crimes in Darfur since the UN Security Council referred the situation in 2005.17International Criminal Court. Situation in Darfur, Sudan Seven arrest warrants have been issued across six cases. Omar al-Bashir, the first sitting head of state charged by the ICC with genocide, remains at large after being released from a Sudanese prison when fighting erupted in April 2023.18Security Council Report. Sudan: International Criminal Court Briefing Three other suspects with outstanding warrants are also fugitives.
The court secured its first Darfur conviction in October 2025. Trial Chamber I found Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, a former militia leader known as Ali Kushayb, guilty of 27 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for atrocities in 2003 and 2004. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison in December 2025.19International Criminal Court. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (Ali Kushayb) Sentenced to 20 Years of Imprisonment The defense appealed the conviction in November 2025, and both sides appealed the sentence in January 2026. A status conference is set for September 2026, and reparations proceedings have begun.20International Criminal Court. Abd-Al-Rahman Case
The civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces that began in April 2023 has opened a second front for the ICC. As of early 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor said it had gathered enough evidence to establish reasonable grounds that Rome Statute crimes occurred in West Darfur, including killings, pillaging, and gender-based violence, and was taking “final steps” toward new arrest warrants.18Security Council Report. Sudan: International Criminal Court Briefing By late 2025, the Prosecutor assessed that war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed in El Fasher by the RSF after its takeover of the city in October 2025. As of the Prosecutor’s January 2026 report, no new warrants had been publicly issued, and investigators were still working to identify individual perpetrators. Cooperation from the warring parties has been uneven: the Sudanese government sent its Attorney General to The Hague in December 2024, while the RSF appointed a cooperation focal point in early 2025 and then failed to follow through, with the Prosecutor calling engagement efforts “in vain.”21International Criminal Court. ICC Report to the UN Security Council on Darfur
The South Sudan TPS Lawsuit
A different Sudan-connected case is playing out in immigration court. On November 6, 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan, effective January 5, 2026, citing executive-order priorities related to fraud and national security risks.22Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. African Communities Together v. Noem
The nonprofit African Communities Together and four South Sudanese TPS holders sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging the decision was arbitrary and pretextual. The court found a “significant mismatch” between the government’s stated justifications and the administrative record, which showed zero cases of fraud or national security concerns among South Sudanese TPS beneficiaries. Plaintiffs also raised an equal-protection claim, alleging racial animus against non-white immigrants.22Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. African Communities Together v. Noem
Judge Angel Kelley issued an emergency stay on December 30, 2025, blocking the termination.23USCIS. Update on Termination of Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan On February 12, 2026, Judge Patti B. Saris formally postponed the termination, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits and that deportation to the “dangerous and unstable” conditions in South Sudan would cause irreparable harm.24U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Memorandum and Order, African Communities Together v. Noem The government appealed to the First Circuit and moved to stay the order, but Judge Saris denied the stay in April 2026.25CUSP. South Sudan TPS
The case is now in abeyance while the Supreme Court considers consolidated challenges to TPS terminations for Haitian and Syrian nationals in Trump v. Miot and Mullin v. Doe. Oral arguments were heard on April 29, 2026, with no ruling yet.26SCOTUSblog. Trump v. Miot For now, South Sudanese TPS holders keep their status and work authorization under the February 2026 court order.27USCIS. Update on Termination of Temporary Protected Status for South Sudan Release April 10, 2026
Pending Legislation in Congress
Two accountability bills targeting the current war remain unresolved. The Sudan Accountability Act (S. 5327), introduced in November 2024, would have required State Department reports on human rights violations since April 2023, formal genocide determinations, and use of sanctions tools including the Global Magnitsky Act; it did not advance before the 118th Congress ended.28U.S. Congress. S. 5327, Sudan Accountability Act The U.S. Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act (H.R. 1939), introduced in March 2025, would authorize sanctions against foreign persons linked to war crimes in Sudan and restrict arms transfers to countries supporting either side.29U.S. Congress. H.R. 1939, U.S. Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act As of mid-2026, H.R. 1939 remains in committee with no hearings scheduled.