U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Plea Deal Appeal by Accused 9/11 Mastermind, Leaving Death Penalty on Table
By SCN NEWS
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an attempt by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks, and two co-defendants to restore plea agreements that would have spared them the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas, leaving intact a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the Pentagon's decision to cancel the deals. The decision keeps the three men on a path toward trial before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with proceedings scheduled to begin in June 2028 after more than two decades of legal disputes.
The justices declined to hear appeals filed by Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi and Walid bin 'Atash challenging the cancellation of agreements approved in 2024 by the senior Pentagon official overseeing military commissions. The proposed arrangements would have required the defendants to admit guilt in connection with the attacks and accept life imprisonment without parole instead of facing possible execution. The Supreme Court issued no detailed explanation for refusing to review the case, a customary practice when the justices decline to take up an appeal.
The agreements were negotiated with military prosecutors and approved by Susan Escallier, the Pentagon official responsible for overseeing the Guantanamo military commission process. They were intended to resolve major parts of a prosecution that has remained unresolved since the defendants were charged in connection with the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Two days after the agreements were announced, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin withdrew his approval, arguing that decisions involving the death penalty in a case of such national importance should remain under the authority of the defense secretary.
Austin's intervention triggered a prolonged legal dispute over whether he possessed the authority to cancel agreements that had already been approved through the military justice system. A military judge initially ruled that Austin lacked the authority to invalidate the arrangements, and the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review upheld that decision. The ruling opened the way for plea proceedings to continue, but federal government lawyers challenged the outcome before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which suspended the proceedings while considering the dispute.
In July 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 that Austin had the legal authority to withdraw from the agreements, reversing the decisions of the military courts. The appellate ruling prevented the defendants from proceeding with guilty pleas under the negotiated terms and restored the possibility that prosecutors could seek capital punishment if convictions were secured. Mohammed and his co-defendants subsequently asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing that the cancellation conflicted with the governing rules of military justice.
Attorneys representing Mohammed and al Hawsawi, including lawyers associated with the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that Austin had intervened too late in the agreement process and that the reversal undermined an opportunity to bring the September 11 prosecution to a conclusion. The defense maintained that the agreements had been lawfully negotiated and accepted by the authorized military commission official. Government lawyers defended Austin's decision, maintaining that the defense secretary had the authority to withdraw the agreements and that decisions about pursuing the death penalty in the September 11 case carried responsibilities extending beyond the military prosecution itself.
The proposed plea agreements had divided relatives of those killed in the attacks. Some family members opposed removing the death penalty from consideration and supported proceeding with a full trial, while others viewed the agreements as a way to secure guilty pleas and bring an end to years of litigation. The dispute has continued amid repeated delays involving classified evidence, the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the admissibility of statements obtained during interrogations.
Mohammed is accused of planning and directing the September 11 attacks, in which hijackers seized four commercial aircraft and crashed two into the World Trade Center in New York and another into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth aircraft crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers attempted to regain control from the hijackers. Nearly 3,000 people were killed, making the attacks the deadliest act of terrorism on American soil. Mohammed has remained in U.S. custody for more than two decades and is among the most prominent detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
The prosecution has faced repeated legal obstacles since the defendants were transferred to Guantanamo in 2006 following detention in secret Central Intelligence Agency facilities. Questions surrounding interrogation methods, allegations of torture and the use of evidence obtained during detention have complicated preparations for trial. The military commission proceedings have also involved extensive litigation over classified information, defense access to evidence and the procedures governing capital cases, contributing to years of delays without a completed trial.
In August 2026, U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Michael Schrama, the military judge overseeing the case, scheduled the trial to begin in June 2028. The timetable provides for the selection of a panel of military personnel who will serve as jurors, followed by opening statements and presentation of evidence. The judge rejected an earlier trial date proposed by prosecutors, citing the time required to resolve outstanding evidentiary and procedural matters before the proceedings could begin.
Monday's Supreme Court decision leaves the D.C. Circuit ruling in force and prevents the three defendants from reinstating their 2024 agreements through the appeals considered by the justices. The ruling does not determine their guilt or resolve the charges arising from the September 11 attacks. The case remains before the Guantanamo military commission, where prosecutors and defense lawyers must continue preparing for trial under a timetable that extends into 2028, more than a quarter-century after the attacks.