US Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Revive 9/11 Plea Deals
publishers 80articles 143first reported 3 Oct, 09:00 UTCdeveloping since 3 Oct · 28 editions
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear appeals from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two alleged accomplices seeking to reinstate plea agreements in the military prosecution over the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The brief, unsigned order leaves in place a lower-court ruling that then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had authority to withdraw the agreements. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in considering the appeal, according to CBS News.
Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi reached pretrial agreements with military prosecutors in 2024. Under the deals, they would have pleaded guilty to charges arising from their alleged roles in the attacks and received life sentences, avoiding the death penalty. Austin revoked the agreements shortly after they were announced.
A military judge later ruled that Austin’s action was unlawful, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit subsequently found that he had acted within his legal authority. The Supreme Court’s refusal to review that decision means the withdrawal of the plea deals remains in effect.
The three defendants, who were captured in 2003 and remain detained at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are scheduled to stand trial in June 2028. Their prosecutions have faced prolonged disputes over evidence obtained after they were subjected to CIA interrogation practices widely described as torture.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 6 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 392 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 80
- Source articles
- 143
- Given to the writer
- 8, 6 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 392 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →