• The U.S. appeals court has thrown out a plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
• The decision, made by a 2-1 vote, signals continued legal challenges in his military prosecution.
• The plea deal would have spared him and co-defendants from the death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea.
• Former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's authority to revoke the agreement was upheld by the court.
• Victims' families remain divided on the plea deal, with some seeking a trial for more comprehensive justice.

A divided U.S. appeals court has thrown out an agreement that would have allowed accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty and avoid the death penalty for his role in the 2001 attacks. The ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit serves to extend the military prosecution saga that has faced extensive legal and procedural delays over more than two decades, indicating that a traditional trial process remains uncertain. The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors, outlined life sentences without parole for Mohammed and several co-defendants, coupled with obligations to answer questions from victims’ families about the attacks, according to latimes, cbsnews, aljazeera, reuters, and bbc.

The ruling by the appeals court reaffirmed that then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin acted within his legal authority to withdraw the plea agreement in August 2024, asserting the necessity for public trials for the accused. The judges noted that allowing the plea deal to persist could signal that such agreements are irrevocable upon signing, a precedent the court was unwilling to set. "The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment," said Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao, who were part of the majority opinion, as reported by various sources including cbsnews and bbc.

Victims’ families have expressed mixed opinions regarding the plea deal. Some opposed it, advocating for a trial to extract more accountable information regarding the attacks, while others saw the deal as a reasonable path to closure and a means to gain answers from the defendants. Brett Eagleson, a family member who disagreed with the plea, emphasized that "the only valid way to get answers and seek the truth is through a trial," reflecting the sentiments of some relatives, according to statements reported by cbsnews and bbc.

The legal proceedings are further complicated by the nature of evidence against Mohammed, including the torture he allegedly endured during his time at secret CIA detention sites before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Rights activists have been pushing for the closure of this controversial military detention facility, insisting that it lacks the legal framework necessary for fair trials, as highlighted by various human rights discussions covered in articles from reuters and aljazeera.