US Supreme Court keeps death penalty possible in 9/11 case
The US Supreme Court rejects an appeal by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two co-defendants against the withdrawal of their plea deal.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a case concerning the plea deal of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is accused of playing a leading role in the 11 September 2001 attacks. The death penalty therefore remains legally possible in the military case.
The agreement at issue would have spared Mohammed and two co-defendants the death penalty. In return, they would have pleaded guilty and received life imprisonment without the possibility of early release.
The agreement had been approved by military prosecutors and the senior legal official at the Guantánamo detention centre. Lloyd Austin, then Secretary of Defense, withdrew the deal in 2024. He argued that in a case of this scale, only the secretary could decide on the death penalty.
The defence argued that Austin had intervened too late and that the agreement should therefore remain in force. A divided appeals court had previously ruled that the secretary had acted within his authority. The Supreme Court has now made no ruling on the question of guilt, but rejected the request to reinstate the plea deal.
The decision means prosecutors can continue to seek the death penalty. According to AP, the three men have not yet received final convictions for the attacks. The military court has, according to AP, set a provisional trial date in June 2028.
The case has been ongoing for decades. Mohammed was arrested in 2003 and charged in 2008, but procedural disputes over his treatment during secret US detention and interrogations have delayed the proceedings. The new decision does not end that dispute; it only determines that the earlier deal will not be reinstated.
For relatives of the victims, the ruling is not clear-cut. Some see a trial as the best route to justice, while others wanted a guilty plea and life imprisonment to prevent further delays. The ruling brings the trial closer, but a final outcome remains years away.
Also show the region and a close-up
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Supreme Court rejected the request to reinstate the plea deal.
- The deal would have ruled out the death penalty.
- The three suspects have not yet been finally convicted.
Left
Arguments A lengthy detention and a possible death sentence raise questions from this perspective about human rights and a fair trial. A guilty plea with life imprisonment can give victims recognition without imposing an irreversible punishment.
Values Human rights, the rule of law and restraint in the use of the death penalty.
Consequences A deal could prevent further delays, but critics fear that it would sacrifice a full search for the truth.
Centre
Arguments The proceedings must be legally robust and take account of both the victims’ families and the rights of the suspects. A regular trial can formally test the facts, but must not be postponed indefinitely.
Values Legal certainty, due process and institutional legitimacy.
Consequences A trial could provide greater clarity, but would require another several years and could lead to further appeals.
Right
Arguments The attacks were exceptionally serious and, from this perspective, the state must retain scope for the harshest punishment. Withdrawing the deal prevents an administrative agreement from limiting the public responsibility to deliver justice.
Values Retribution, security and the authority of the state.
Consequences The death penalty may be seen as a deterrent or as justice, but it also prolongs the legal battle and remains controversial.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The procedural decision, the earlier plea deal and the provisional trial date have been confirmed by multiple public sources. The text avoids reaching a conclusion on guilt and presents the death penalty as a possible demand, not as a sentence imposed.
- confirmed The Supreme Court rejected the request to reinstate the plea deal. — AP and Axios reported the decision; the order list is the primary procedural source. source
- confirmed The deal would have excluded the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas and life imprisonment. — AP describes the terms. source
- confirmed Lloyd Austin withdrew the agreement in 2024. — AP describes the decision by the then secretary. source
- confirmed A trial is provisionally scheduled for June 2028. — AP and Axios give the provisional date. source
Editor's note
The procedural decision was confirmed by AP, Axios and the Supreme Court’s public order list. The question of guilt has not yet been decided; those involved remain suspects.Sources
- Supreme Court rejects effort to revive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed plea deal — Associated Press
- Orders of the Court: Term Year 2026 — Supreme Court of the United States
- Accused 9/11 mastermind loses Supreme Court plea deal bid — Axios
More on this in Dutch media
- Het Parool — „verenigde staten”
- Trouw — „verenigde staten”
- NRC — „verenigde staten”