On Wednesday, September 28th, 2016, Congress voted overwhelmingly (97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House) to override President Obama's veto on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a bill that would allow families of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role they played in the plot. The Saudi government fiercely denies any involvement in the terror attacks, and the commission investigating the terror plot found, "No evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials officially funded Al Queda, the terrorist group responsible for the attacks." However, the commission left open the possibility that some Saudi officials may have played roles in the planning. The bill would allow courts to waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in situations that involve terrorism on US soil. The legal jargon surrounding the decision can make it almost impossible to understand, so here's a list of the top five things you need to know.

1. This is the first time that Congress has overridden a veto during Obama's presidency.

This veto is Obama's twelfth veto during his presidency, yet Congress has never voted to override one of these decisions during his nearly eight years of presidency.

2. The Saudis have threatened a response.

The Saudis have threatened to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars of US assets in response to JASTA. They are also reportedly assembling an army of lobbyists to furiously attempt to derail the bill at the last-minute.

3. Obama warns that this law could lead to legal trouble for the US.

According to a White House statement, this law could cause other countries to retaliate against the US, stripping the country of it's immunity that it relies on to prevent foreign courts from second-guessing our counter-terrorism techniques and other actions taken every day. For example, according to John Bolton (former ambassador to the UN) and Michael Mukasey (former US Attorney), “An errant drone strike that kills non-combatants in Afghanistan could easily trigger lawsuits demanding that U.S. military or intelligence personnel be hauled into foreign courts.”

4. This override gives the green light to several lawsuits.

Several attempted lawsuits have been consolidated into a class action law suit on behalf of the families of victims as well as several insurance companies. The lawyers in charge of the suit are attempting to prove that the Saudi government was involved in the terror plot, despite the fact that the 9/11 commission did not find any evidence to tie them to the attack. 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationalists, and the families do not want to give up until they have exhausted every method to have those responsible brought to justice. According to Lorie Van Auken, whose husband was killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, "I don't think anybody should ever have immunity for what happened on 9/11. ... It's about justice. It's about where this will lead us. It's not about money." This new law would allow the legal team responsible for the case to access files that are currently classified, allowing for the possible discovery of guilt, and a sense of resolution for the families involved.

5. The bill could impact the fight against ISIS.

Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia has been one of Washington's longest-standing and most important allies in the Middle East. Most recently, the two nations have joined together to form a coalition to fight Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. Several weeks ago, Robert Jordan, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia warned that, "we have to understand the political environment we're in right now and the tremendous support the 9/11 victims have in the United States." He continued to explain that the risk of losing a valuable ally in the fight against ISIS is much greater than any potential benefits that could come from this bill.