The Supreme Court refused to bring back the plea deals for the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks, so the death penalty stays on the table.
Story Highlights
- On Monday, October 19, the Supreme Court turned away Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s bid to restore his 2024 plea deal.
- The deal would have traded guilty pleas for life in prison, sparing him and two co-defendants the death penalty.
- Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin threw out the deals shortly after they were announced.
- The three men still face five charges that carry the death penalty.
What The Supreme Court Did And Why It Matters
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man accused of planning the Sept. 11 attacks, asked the high court to revive a plea deal that would have kept him off death row. The justices said no in a short, unsigned order. That leaves in place a federal appeals court ruling that Austin had the power to tear up the deals. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part.
Two other men charged alongside Mohammed joined the appeal. They are Walid bin ‘Atash and Mustafa al Hawsawi, whom prosecutors accuse of helping with the plot. All three were captured in 2003 and formally charged in 2008. Their cases go before a military commission, a wartime court run by the military at Guantanamo Bay rather than a regular federal court.
Who Made The Deal And Who Undid It
Talks on a plea deal began in 2023, after retired Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier became the convening authority. That is the Pentagon official who oversees the Guantanamo cases and can approve deals. The agreements were reached and approved in 2024. Under them, the three men would plead guilty to all charges tied to the 9/11 attacks and serve life in prison instead of facing execution. The deals also would have required them to give answers to victims’ families about the attacks.
Shortly after the deals became public, Austin revoked them. He said a life-or-death decision in an attack as grave as 9/11 should rest with the defense secretary alone. In the appeals court’s opinion, the judges quoted Austin as saying “families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.”
How The Courts Got Here
In November 2024, a military judge ruled that Austin’s move was unlawful and that the deals were valid and could be enforced. A military appeals panel agreed, saying the men had already begun carrying out one of the terms. Then, on Friday, July 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the government in a 2-1 vote. “The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,” the court wrote.
Judge Robert Wilkins disagreed. “The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred,” he wrote in his dissent. Monday’s order from the Supreme Court lets the majority ruling stand.
What Comes Next For The Families
With the deals gone, prosecutors can keep seeking the death penalty in the military commission. The Supreme Court’s order did not set a trial date. That is up to the commission.
The case has moved slowly for years. The three men were held in secret CIA prisons before they were moved to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Much of the delay has come from fights over whether evidence gathered during harsh CIA questioning can be used in court. For the families of the nearly 3,000 people killed on 9/11, the court’s order keeps a full trial, with the possibility of the ultimate punishment, in play.
Sources:
cbsnews.com, aljazeera.com, ctpost.com, independent.co.uk, nbcnews.com, abcnews.com, en.wikipedia.org, justice.gov
