Supreme Court Rejects Alleged 9/11 Mastermind's Bid to Revive Plea Deal
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a plea deal that would have spared Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, from the possibility of execution.
The justices declined in an unsigned order to hear appeals from Mohammed and two co-defendants, Walid bin 'Atash and Mustafa al Hawsawi, CBS News reported. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part in the decision. The court did not explain its reasoning, and no dissents were noted.
What the Plea Deal Would Have Done
Under the agreements reached with military prosecutors in 2024, the three men would have pleaded guilty to all charges and received life sentences without the possibility of parole. In exchange, they would have avoided the death penalty, The Associated Press reported.
The deals were approved by retired Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier, the Pentagon's senior official overseeing the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. But about 48 hours after they were announced, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin threw them out, NPR reported. The deals came after more than two years of negotiations.
Austin said that in an attack this serious, the decision on whether to pursue the death penalty should only be made by the defense secretary.
A Long Legal Fight
Defense attorneys argued that Austin acted too late. In November 2024, a military judge agreed, ruling that his move was unlawful and that the agreements were valid. A military appeals court later said Austin could not cancel the deals because the defendants had already begun carrying out one of their terms.
The Justice Department then asked a federal appeals court in Washington to step in. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the government last year, finding that the defense secretary "indisputably" had the authority to withdraw from the agreements.
"The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment," the panel wrote.
With the Supreme Court declining to take up the case, that ruling stands, and the plea deals remain off the table.
More Than Two Decades Without a Trial
Mohammed, bin 'Atash and al Hawsawi were captured in 2003. They were held in secret CIA prisons, where they were subjected to what the government called "enhanced interrogation techniques," which critics have described as torture, before being moved to Guantanamo Bay in 2006.
The men were formally charged in 2008 before a military commission. Five of the charges they face carry the death penalty.
Plea talks began in 2023, after Escallier was appointed to oversee the military commissions. A trial date has now been set for 2028.
Two other men were originally charged in the case. Ammar al-Baluchi did not agree to a plea deal, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Families Remain Divided
Relatives of those killed in the attacks have been split over the plea deals. Some have said a full trial is the best path to justice. Others have seen the agreements as their best hope for finally bringing an end to a long and painful case.
Some families were angry that the deals would deny them secrets a public trial might reveal, while others want the men executed, NPR reported. One group of victims' relatives, September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the case.
The ruling comes just weeks after the nation marked the 25th anniversary of the attacks. Nearly 3,000 people were killed when hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
The toll continues to grow, with 9/11-related cancer cases still on the rise.
Curious for more stories that keep you informed and entertained? From the latest headlines to everyday insights, YourLifeBuzz has more to explore. Dive into what’s next.