The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has overturned plea agreements for three Guantánamo detainees implicated in the September 11 attacks, effectively allowing the government to pursue the death penalty. This ruling arrives more than two decades after the tragic event that claimed nearly 3,000 lives.
The 2–1 decision affirmed that Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III legitimately exercised his authority when he rescinded the plea deals in August 2023. These agreements, initially approved by a military commission’s convening authority and upheld by a military judge, offered life sentences in exchange for guilty pleas. Judge Patricia Millett, who penned the majority opinion joined by Judge Neomi Rao, emphasized that Austin’s actions were warranted due to the “unique and important national security interests” involved. Judge Robert Wilkins dissented.
The court’s decision granted the government’s unusual request for writs of mandamus and prohibition, effectively blocking the military judge from honoring the rescinded plea agreements. This puts federal prosecutors in the position of deciding whether to resume capital proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, and Mustafa al Hawsawi, who have been detained at Guantánamo Bay since 2006. Mohammed, apprehended in 2003, is identified as the mastermind behind the September 11 atrocities.
The plea agreements were the result of extensive negotiations over two years, which would have guaranteed the defendants life sentences upon admission of guilt. Austin’s decision to retract the deals sparked a legal impasse concerning whether the government could nullify its agreements post-defendant cooperation. Lower military courts and the Pentagon’s Court of Military Commission Review previously held that the United States was bound by these terms—a view not shared by the D.C. Circuit.
The court’s finding hinged on two conclusions: first, that Austin held the authority to retract delegations and personally nullify the agreements; second, that the defendants had not commenced “performance” under military commission rules, necessary for the plea agreement to be binding. The court ruled that remaining silent during a pretrial suppression hearing was inadequate to constitute performance. In dissent, Judge Wilkins likened the government’s actions to refusing compensation to a contractor mid-job, contending that signing formal admissions should count as performance.
The defense is yet to declare if an appeal will be pursued. In the absence of plea deals, the proceedings revert to pretrial, where intricate legal challenges persist, notably regarding the admissibility of statements obtained through torture. For more details, the full article is available here.