Supreme Court rejects alleged 9/11 mastermind’s attempt to revive plea deal

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal brought by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other alleged 9/11 plotters seeking to hold the government to a plea deal it later withdrew.

The court action removes one barrier to Mohammed standing trial before a military commission in 2028, where the death penalty is a possible punishment. He has been held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2006.

Mohammed is accused of being the ringleader of the plot to crash hijacked planes into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. A fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

The other two men who appealed to the Supreme Court were Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash, who are also held at Guantanamo and set to face trial.

The three men had agreed to a plea deal with military prosecutors in 2024, signed off on by a military commission judge, that would have given them life sentences.

But days later, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin rejected the proposal, saying he had the authority to override the deal.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDOJ weighs election litigation against more states

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP Senate hopeful Ashley Hinson balances standing by Trump and standing up to him in Iowa

FOR SUBSCRIBERSInside the reopened U.S. Embassy in Caracas

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAIPAC shifts tactics amid voter frustration with Israel

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe viral attack ad featuring an estranged mother

FOR SUBSCRIBERSU.S. troops and diplomats evacuating Middle East posts, sources say

FOR SUBSCRIBERSBogus trans youth brochure rattles Texas voters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSWho knew a basket could be sexy? How ‘Wicker’ became fall’s surprise must-see

FOR SUBSCRIBERSExperts explain how an AI kill switch could work

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCalifornia’s billionaire tax faces a mountain of opposition — and not just from the rich

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump keeps promising ‘goodies’ on the campaign trail — but only if Republicans win

FOR SUBSCRIBERSPolice records reveal tensions between Cornell investigators and DA years before Jane Doe case

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe U.S. fertility rate has hit another record low, CDC finds. Is that good or bad?

FOR SUBSCRIBERSViral attack ad featuring candidate’s estranged mother rattles bitter Ohio governor race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSWhy 1 in 5 multiple sclerosis patients like Christina Applegate are misdiagnosed

Slide 1 of 1

Military courts said he had no such authority, but, in an August ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the government, prompting the men to appeal to the Supreme Court.

For Subscribers

FOR SUBSCRIBERSDOJ weighs election litigation against more states

FOR SUBSCRIBERSGOP Senate hopeful Ashley Hinson balances standing by Trump and standing up to him in Iowa

FOR SUBSCRIBERSInside the reopened U.S. Embassy in Caracas

FOR SUBSCRIBERSAIPAC shifts tactics amid voter frustration with Israel

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe viral attack ad featuring an estranged mother

FOR SUBSCRIBERSU.S. troops and diplomats evacuating Middle East posts, sources say

FOR SUBSCRIBERSBogus trans youth brochure rattles Texas voters

FOR SUBSCRIBERSWho knew a basket could be sexy? How ‘Wicker’ became fall’s surprise must-see

FOR SUBSCRIBERSExperts explain how an AI kill switch could work

FOR SUBSCRIBERSCalifornia’s billionaire tax faces a mountain of opposition — and not just from the rich

FOR SUBSCRIBERSTrump keeps promising ‘goodies’ on the campaign trail — but only if Republicans win

FOR SUBSCRIBERSPolice records reveal tensions between Cornell investigators and DA years before Jane Doe case

FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe U.S. fertility rate has hit another record low, CDC finds. Is that good or bad?

FOR SUBSCRIBERSViral attack ad featuring candidate’s estranged mother rattles bitter Ohio governor race

FOR SUBSCRIBERSWhy 1 in 5 multiple sclerosis patients like Christina Applegate are misdiagnosed

Slide 1 of 1

They argued, among other things, that the appeals court had no authority to intervene in the case.

The long delay in Mohammed facing trial was caused partly by concerns about evidence obtained via CIA torture.

A fourth alleged plotter earmarked for trial, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, was not involved in the appeal.