The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2–1 ruling on 11 July, upheld Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin’s decision to void the 2024 agreement and reinstate death‑penalty prosecutions. Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao, forming the majority, concluded that Austin possessed "full legal authority" to withdraw from the agreement given the gravity of the 9/11 attacks and the public interest at stake
Appeals Court Revives Death Penalty in Guantánamo Case
A US federal appeals court has overturned a contentious plea agreement that would have exempted the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and two co-defendants from the death penalty, re-opening the path for full military trials that could result in capital punishment.
The ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit marks a pivotal turn in one of the longest-running legal sagas stemming from the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The 2-1 decision, issued on 11 July, found that the Pentagon's 2024 decision to withdraw from the plea agreement was legally sound and reinstated the potential for death penalty proceedings against Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi.
The three men have been held at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility for over two decades, accused of central roles in orchestrating the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil. They were previously in the midst of negotiating plea deals that would have seen them receive life sentences in exchange for admitting guilt and providing cooperation. The agreements had also included provisions to spare them the death penalty and improve prison conditions.
However, the court found that US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin acted within his authority when he halted the process earlier this year, citing broader interests of justice and concerns about transparency and accountability. The decision clears the way for prosecutors to resume capital trials under the military commissions system.
Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the majority, stated that while plea agreements are common tools in both civilian and military justice systems, the exceptional nature of the 9/11 case warranted a reconsideration of the terms. She wrote that it was not unreasonable for the Defence Department to reverse course, given that the agreements had not been formally finalised and that the public interest in a full trial remained significant.
The appeals court rejected arguments by defence lawyers who claimed that the withdrawal amounted to a breach of process and denied the defendants a fair opportunity to resolve their cases. Instead, the court emphasised the discretionary power of the government to seek full accountability in matters involving acts of mass terrorism.
The decision comes after years of delays, procedural disputes, and shifting political priorities that have plagued the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay. Legal efforts to bring the accused to trial have repeatedly stalled due to challenges over the use of torture in interrogations, questions over jurisdiction, and administrative changes under successive US administrations.
Mohammed, considered the principal architect of the 9/11 plot, was captured in Pakistan in 2003 and transferred to Guantánamo Bay in 2006 after being held in CIA custody. He has admitted involvement in the attacks, but efforts to bring him to trial have been hindered by legal complications, including debates over the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture.
The other two defendants, bin Attash and al-Hawsawi, are accused of supporting roles in facilitating the hijackings and financing the attackers. All three have been charged before military commissions but have yet to face a full trial, with proceedings frequently disrupted or postponed.
The now-voided plea deal had been seen as a possible resolution to a case that has lingered for over two decades without a verdict. It had been quietly developed over months and reportedly included conditions that would address the detainees’ treatment and long-standing concerns over the conditions of confinement.
Although the full details of the agreements had not been made public, reports indicated that the terms were controversial within government circles. Senior Biden administration officials were divided over whether to accept deals that would prevent the imposition of the death penalty in exchange for expediency.
The decision to abandon the plea negotiations is expected to reignite debates about the viability and fairness of the military commissions system, which has faced criticism from legal experts, rights groups, and former officials. Concerns over indefinite detention without trial, the use of torture, and lack of transparency have dogged the process since its inception under the Bush administration.
While the ruling does not mandate a specific timeline for the trials to begin, it restores prosecutorial discretion to pursue capital charges. Prosecutors will now need to reconfigure their approach, including addressing evidentiary issues related to classified materials and potential challenges surrounding the use of statements obtained under duress.