The trial is set for June 2028, amid ongoing legal disputes regarding evidence and interrogation methods used during their detention since 2003
The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the 11 September 2001 attacks, and two alleged accomplices seeking to reinstate plea agreements that would have spared them the death penalty.
In an unsigned order, the court declined to overturn a lower court ruling that upheld the US government’s decision to withdraw the agreements reached with military prosecutors in 2024.
The decision leaves in place the withdrawal ordered by then-Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin under the Biden administration. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part in the court’s consideration of the appeal.
Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi and Walid bin ‘Atash face charges before a military commission over their alleged roles in planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Five of the charges carry the death penalty.
The judge overseeing the cases set a trial date for June 2028 in August, although the schedule depends on the parties meeting a series of deadlines and procedural requirements.
Why Were the Plea Deals Withdrawn?
The agreements were reached in 2024 after military lawyers began negotiations with the defendants the previous year. They were approved by retired Brigadier General Susan Escallier, the official responsible for overseeing the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Under the terms of the deals, the three defendants would plead guilty to all charges arising from their alleged roles in the attacks and serve life sentences instead of facing the possibility of execution.
However, shortly after the agreements were announced, Austin withdrew them.
A military judge ruled in November 2024 that the defence secretary’s decision was unlawful and that the agreements remained valid and enforceable.
A military appeals court subsequently ruled that Austin could not rescind the deals because the defendants had already begun fulfilling one of their terms.
The Justice Department challenged that decision, asking the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to uphold the government’s withdrawal.
The appeals court sided with the government last year, ruling that Austin 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 said.
The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the latest appeal means that ruling stands.