Guantánamo 9/11 Plea Deals Overturned By Federal Appeals Court

Tone & Political Bias: Center-Leaning

Why: The report highlights both government authority and defense objections without favoring either, includes dissenting judicial opinions, and voices from 9/11 victims on both sides.

What Happened

A federal appeals court has canceled plea deals for three men accused of plotting the September 11 attacks, ruling that former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had legal authority to rescind the agreements. The decision reverses earlier military court rulings and could further delay a case that has already dragged on for more than two decades.

Why It Matters

The ruling adds another layer of delay to a legal process already criticized for its failure to move toward a trial. The men — including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — remain detained without convictions. If the case does not move forward, proceedings could continue for decades.

The Ruling

• On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2–1 ruling canceling plea agreements reached in 2023.

• The deals would have allowed the defendants to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences, avoiding the death penalty.

• The court found that Secretary Austin “indisputably had legal authority” to withdraw the agreements, even after they were announced.

• The majority included Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao. Judge Robert Wilkins dissented.

Dissenting Opinion

• Judge Wilkins, who previously signaled concerns with the government’s legal stance, strongly opposed the ruling.

• He argued the court disregarded “longstanding principles” of military legal autonomy.

• Wilkins said the government failed to show a clear error by the military judge who had accepted the plea deals.

  
  

Background On The Deals

• The plea deals had been under negotiation for over two years.

• They were officially announced by the Guantánamo military commission in 2023.

• Secretary Austin rescinded them just two days later, citing a lack of prior notice and a preference for a death-penalty trial.

• Defense lawyers say this reversal undermined legal authority already delegated to military officials.

  
  

Legal Limbo

• Military judges and a military appeals panel had ruled Austin acted too late and without proper authority.

• Friday’s ruling overturns those decisions, saying civilian oversight takes precedence.

• The defense may now appeal the ruling to the full D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

  
  

Voices From 9/11 Families

• Elizabeth Miller, who lost her father in the attacks, expressed frustration with ongoing delays: “The main theme is waiting, waiting, waiting.”

• She supports the plea deals as a path to resolution.

• Brett Eagleson, also a 9/11 victim family member, welcomed the court’s decision: “We absolutely need a trial… a plea bargain would have taken that right away from us.”

  
  

What's Next

• Defense attorneys are reviewing options. Matthew Engle, attorney for Walid bin Attash, said they would meet this week to determine next steps.

• Without a plea deal, legal experts suggest the case could continue into the 2040s or even 2050 due to ongoing disputes over evidence and classified materials.

  
  

Key Context

• The Guantánamo 9/11 case has been stuck in pre-trial hearings for over 20 years.

• Allegations of CIA torture have led to disputes over the admissibility of evidence.

• The plea agreements remain sealed. A request by media outlets, including NPR, to unseal them was also denied by the court, citing Friday’s ruling in Austin’s favor.