Yes and no. Biden did intervene personally.
"(Reuters) -A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the fiance of slain journalist Jamal Khashoggi against Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, citing President Biden's grant of immunity."
Just to emphasise:-".......citing President Biden's grant of immunity."
The murder was committed whilst the prince was acting head of state so no immunity should apply. Because he has since been made head of state does not mean immunity should hold for past crimes. And when the time comes, what of people like Putin, who is also head of state?.

@puff Sure, it's an awful question about Putin, but the global community has set up rules in order to allow countries their autonomy while interacting with their neighbors globally. That's the whole point of international law. A case is already being built against Putin for his abuses of the Geneva Convention.

Biden granted immunity as the head of state towards another head of state (an acting head of state is still a head of state). Removing that immunity has implications beyond one lawsuit, so what exactly was expected as a result of the lawsuit? That we go to war with Saudi Arabia? That we cease trade? That we forbid American companies from working there? I'm actually good with the last two.

@Lauren the last two is what I took as meaning "treating like a pariah state".
If Putin does go to trial, which I doubt, then others must also go for Libya. A "no-fly zone" was imposed as Ghaddafi used his forces against his own population. As has Ukraine since 2014. Too many double standards in this world.

Will he offer the same courtesy to Putin do you think? Prior to the election, Biden vowed to make Saudi Arabia a pariah state because of this murder. A man of principal he is not.

@puff

1. It was not a courtesy, it is international legal protocol.

2. What Americans has Putin murdered? Cite supporting evidence.

3. Let's see your evidence that "Prior to the election. Biden vowed to make Saudi Arabia a pariah state because of this murder."

4. Biden is a man of extraordinary PRINCIPLE comparative to the Orange Dicktator, and those were our choices.

@LovinLarge 1) it was a personal intervention by Biden (read the judges comments)
2) Putin is a head of state, the excuse for granting immunity.
3) [msn.com]
4) A dog turd has extraordinary principal compared to Trump. This "whataboutism" does not excuse Biden's change of heart regarding an election promise taking the moral high ground.

@puff

1. It was a personal intervention that was required by law. If he hadn't done it, it would have been done for him.

2. You asked if Biden would grant diplomatic immunity to Putin. This would only be available if Putin had committed a crime in the US or harmed an American. Let's see your evidence that he has done so such that your question made sense to ask.

3. Your article does not say what you say it says, only that he referred to Saudi Arabia as a pariah state during his campaign. It does however say that during his campaign he vowed to hold Saudi Arabia to account for Khashoggi. The article appears to imply that when he visited he found he could catch more flies with honey.

4. You misrepresented his election promise regarding making Saudi Arabia a pariah state so you can't hold him to that. Why did he back off Khashoggi though? I think he decided it was too big a risk for international relations. He is a politician, after all.

@LovinLarge A shame he didn't make intentions known sooner as Jamal's fiancée would have saved a lot of money, time and grief. Not to mention wasting the courts time.
As for 4) and misrepresenting election pledges, as you say, he is a politician.