The Supreme Court on Monday, October 19, declined to hear appeals from three men charged in the September 11, 2001 attacks who wanted to bring back plea agreements that would have spared them the death penalty. The justices turned down Mohammad v. United States and bin 'Atash v. United States without comment, SCOTUSblog reported.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not take part in the Mohammad case, according to the Court's docket as tracked by SCOTUSblog. The order leaves in place a federal appeals court ruling that the government could withdraw from the deals.
How the deals fell apart
The petitioners are Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who is accused of being the mastermind of the attacks, along with Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin 'Atash and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. All three have been held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly two decades and face charges before a military commission.
In July 2024, prosecutors reached plea agreements with the three men. They would plead guilty and serve life in prison instead of facing a possible death sentence. Prosecutors called the deals "the best path to finality and justice," according to a SCOTUSblog explainer.
Two days after the deals were announced, then Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin moved to withdraw from them, citing his own authority over such agreements. Two military courts ruled that the agreements were binding anyway. In July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned those rulings and agreed with the government that it could back out.
What the defense argued
The defense framed the case as a question about appellate power, not just about these defendants. Their petition asked whether an appeals court can use the All Writs Act to issue a writ of mandamus reviewing a procedural order in a criminal case when the government has no statutory right to appeal that order.
The men argued that Austin had no authority to withdraw from agreements they say were already being carried out. They also said the D.C. Circuit lacked the power to give the government the "extraordinary" relief it asked for. Three amicus briefs were filed at the petition stage, including one from the group September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to stay out. He wrote that the appeals court "properly held that it had jurisdiction" and "properly cleared the way for those prosecutions to continue." He also argued the ruling "ensured that" the judgment on the death penalty "lies in politically accountable hands." He agreed the case was nationally significant but said that was a reason to deny review.
Why defense lawyers are watching
In ordinary criminal courts, a signed plea agreement is treated as something close to a contract, and backing out of one after a defendant has relied on it is rare. The September 11 case tested whether the same expectations hold in a military commission, where a senior official has authority over the deal.
The denial does not mean the justices endorsed the D.C. Circuit's reasoning. It means they chose not to review it, and the capital case goes forward without the plea deals. All three men are presumed innocent unless convicted.
Plea strategy has shaped other high profile cases too, including the state and federal split in the Luigi Mangione case. It is the kind of case the Two Taps legal panel takes apart on the show.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
