Skip to main content
CadNews - Comparative News Analysis
Topics
Sign in
Back to brief

Politics · October 19, 2026

Today in Supreme Court History: October 19, 1789

6 sources →

The Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other alleged 9/11 plotters, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash. The defendants sought to reinstate plea deals reached in 2024 that would have traded guilty pleas for life sentences, avoiding the death penalty. These deals were subsequently revoked by then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene upholds a D.C. Circuit Court ruling that found Austin had the legal authority to withdraw the agreements, clearing the way for a potential military commission trial in 2028 where the death penalty remains an option.

Read the original coverage

Reported across the spectrum

  • The Supreme Court rejected the appeal by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and Walid bin Attash to revive their plea deals.
  • The plea deals, reached in 2024, would have resulted in life sentences rather than the death penalty.
  • Then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin revoked the plea deals shortly after they were signed.
  • The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the government, stating Austin had the authority to override the deals.
  • The defendants have been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2006.
  • Evidence obtained through torture/enhanced interrogation has caused significant delays in the legal process.

Reported by only some outlets

  • Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in the Supreme Court's consideration of the appeal.
  • A fourth alleged plotter, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, was not part of this specific appeal.
  • The military judge who approved the deals was retired Brigadier General Susan Escallier.
  • A military court initially ruled Austin's nullification was unlawful because the defendants had begun performing terms of the deal.

About these outlets

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