Supreme Court rejects 9/11 defendants’ bid to reinstate plea deals without explanation

WASHINGTON, DC: The US Supreme Court on Monday, Oct 19, rejected a plea from three defendants accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks who sought to plead guilty in exchange for avoiding the death penalty.

The plea was filed by three men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001, attacks who are awaiting trial at the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Supreme Court rejects appeal seeking to reinstate plea deals

The petitions, which the justices rejected without explanation, were filed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two alleged accomplices, Mustafa al-Hawsawi and Walid bin ‘Attash.

In their petitions, the three defendants sought to reinstate plea deals under which they had agreed to plead guilty and provide detailed accounts of their roles in the deadliest terrorist attack in US history.

In exchange, they would have avoided the death penalty and received life sentences without parole.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself from the Mohammed and al-Hawsawi petition.

The deals were revoked by the then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in early August 2024, just days after a Pentagon official approved them in late July. The decision came amid criticism from some family members of the victims.

A military judge ruled that Austin had acted too late to withdraw the agreements because the defendants had already begun fulfilling their obligations under the deals. A military appeals panel later upheld that decision.

However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the ruling in July 2025, finding that Austin had the legal authority to withdraw the agreements.

Did the appellate court lack authority to hear the government’s challenge?

The defendants, in a separate petition, argued that the appellate court was not authorized to hear the government’s challenge.

Bin ‘Attash also argued that the appellate court was wrong to conclude that he had not begun fulfilling his obligations under the agreement. He said he had already signed a stipulation admitting the factual basis for the charges.

Arguing against the petition, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that allowing the agreements to stand would undermine the authority of the defense secretary, who is accountable to the American people, to decide whether to pursue the death penalty. He urged the justices to reject the appeals.

“The court of appeals correctly exercised jurisdiction to reject the military judge’s extraordinary disregard for the Secretary’s authority over these military-commission prosecutions of paramount national significance,” Sauer wrote.

What are three men accused of?

The defendants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, and Walid bin ‘Attash, were charged jointly for allegedly helping plan and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks more than two decades ago.

Nearly 3,000 people were killed when members of the al-Qaeda terrorist group hijacked four commercial planes, crashing them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

They are set to be tried together in a military trial scheduled to begin in early June 2028. The start date has been pushed back several times.