Skip to main content
Back to brief

Politics · October 19, 2026

Supreme court rejects effort to revive plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 9/11 attacks

10 sources →

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants to revive plea agreements that would have removed the death penalty for their roles in the September 11 attacks. The ruling upholds a decision by former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who revoked the deals in 2024 shortly after they were approved by the Pentagon's convening authority for military commissions. The defendants argued that Austin exceeded his authority by intervening in the deals. The high court's refusal to hear the case leaves the government's withdrawal of the deals in place, moving the defendants toward a military commission trial currently scheduled for June 2028.

Read the original coverage

Reported across the spectrum

  • The Supreme Court declined to review the appeal regarding the plea deals.
  • The defendants involved are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, and Walid bin 'Atash.
  • The 2024 plea deals would have exchanged guilty pleas for life sentences without the possibility of parole, avoiding the death penalty.
  • Former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked the agreements after they were initially approved.
  • A trial for the defendants is currently set for 2028.
  • Legal delays in the case have been caused by issues surrounding evidence obtained through CIA 'enhanced interrogation' or torture.

Reported by only some outlets

  • Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in the Supreme Court's consideration of the appeal.
  • The Trump administration has reportedly backed the decision to revoke the deals.
  • A military judge in 2024 initially ruled that Austin's nullification of the deals was unlawful before an appeals court overturned that finding.
  • The plea deals required the accused to answer questions from family members of survivors during public sentencing.
  • Brigadier General Susan Escallier was the convening authority who originally approved the deals.

CadNews does not determine absolute truth or endorse political viewpoints. It compares publicly available reporting, identifies shared facts, highlights framing differences, and flags uncertainty.