A federal appeals court has ruled that former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had the legal authority to revoke plea agreements reached with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other men accused of orchestrating the September 11 terror attacks.
The decision, handed down by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, reverses earlier rulings by military judges that had deemed the plea agreements “valid and enforceable.” The court stated that Austin was within his rights to withdraw the deals before any formal obligations had been fulfilled.
“The Secretary of Defense indisputably had legal authority to withdraw from the agreements,” the ruling said. “The plain and unambiguous text of the pretrial agreements shows that no performance of promises had begun.”
The agreements, reached in 2023 after more than two years of negotiations, would have taken the death penalty off the table in exchange for guilty pleas and full participation in public sentencing hearings. The defendants—Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi, and Walid Bin ‘Attash—would have faced life sentences and been required to answer questions from 9/11 victims’ families and survivors.
But the deals sparked political controversy and backlash from some victims’ groups advocating for the death penalty. Days after the agreements were disclosed, Austin overruled them, asserting that such high-stakes decisions should fall under his direct authority—not that of Brig. Gen. Susan Escallier, who was overseeing the Guantanamo military commissions at the time. He also removed Escallier from the cases.
That move ignited a legal standoff lasting months. Defense attorneys challenged the decision, accusing Austin of overreach and violating established military commission procedures. They argued that once the defendants had begun fulfilling their obligations under the plea deals, the agreements became binding.
In November 2024, military judge Col. Matthew McCall sided with the defense, saying the agreements were valid and that Austin’s intervention had come too late. A military appeals court later upheld that ruling. But Friday’s federal decision overturned both.
The DC appeals court concluded that no actions taken by the defendants qualified as “performance of promises” that would have prevented Austin from pulling the deals. As such, his authority to withdraw them stood.
Critics of the ruling say it deals another blow to long-delayed efforts at justice in the 9/11 case.
Wells Dixon, senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights and former counsel for Guantanamo detainee Majid Khan, condemned the decision.
“This ruling guarantees continued delays and denies closure to victims’ families,” Dixon said. “The Biden administration’s effort to undo plea agreements that secured life sentences was a painful betrayal—especially after more than 20 years of litigation with no resolution.”
Dixon also argued that the likelihood of a fair trial remains slim due to the central role of torture in the detainees’ interrogations. The admissibility of evidence obtained through torture has long been a legal sticking point in the 9/11 trials.
“Even if a trial ever happens, the government would have to confront the torture these men endured,” Dixon said. “And that’s something they have consistently avoided.”
The 2023 plea deals had been seen as a possible resolution to a legal quagmire that has dragged on for decades. With Friday’s ruling, however, the path forward remains unclear, and the 9/11 cases continue to languish in legal limbo.
