9/11 Victims' Families Divided as Supreme Court Refuses To Restore Deals That Would Bar Death Penalty

The US Supreme Court has refused to revive plea deals that would have taken the death penalty off the table for three men accused over the 9/11 attacks, leaving victims' families split over whether they want a swift resolution or a full capital trial nearly a quarter of a century on.

The court in Washington on Monday declined to hear appeals over the 9/11 plea agreements, renewing attention to longstanding differences among victims' relatives over whether the three accused plotters should stand trial.

Some family members wanted the agreements restored, accepting guilty pleas and life sentences instead of the death penalty. Others argued that a trial offered the clearest chance to examine the evidence.

A military trial remains provisionally scheduled for June 2028. The ruling followed a series of court battles over agreements reached in July 2024. Military prosecutors negotiated the deals, which were approved by the Pentagon official overseeing the Guantanamo Bay commissions.

Then-defence secretary Lloyd Austin withdrew them days later, setting off a legal dispute that eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Why the 9/11 Plea Deals Divided Victims' Families

For Elizabeth Miller, repeated delays had become central to the argument for a negotiated settlement. Her father, firefighter Douglas C. Miller, died at the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.

In a July 2025 interview with NPR, she described the proceedings as 'waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting'.

Miller supported agreements that would require admissions of guilt without a death-penalty trial. Brett Eagleson, whose father John Bruce Eagleson died in the attacks, took the opposite position.

'We absolutely need a trial,' Eagleson said in an interview published by NPR in July 2025. He argued that a plea bargain would deny families an opportunity to seek the truth through a trial.

Support for the agreements was also documented in an August 2026 court filing. September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows and 66 individual relatives backed the defendants' request for Supreme Court review.

Their 3 August submission described the prolonged effort to bring the accused to justice as an 'abject failure'. The signatories did not speak for all bereaved families.

What the 9/11 Plea Deals Would Have Required

The agreements involved Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa al Hawsawi and Walid bin 'Atash. All three face charges arising from the September 2001 attacks.

Prosecutors accuse Mohammed of directing the plot involving four hijacked aircraft, two of which struck the World Trade Center. A third hit the Pentagon, while the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania.

Under the agreements, the three defendants would plead guilty to the charges and receive life sentences rather than face possible execution. The proposed arrangements also envisaged public sentencing proceedings at which victims' relatives could participate.

According to the relatives' Supreme Court filing, the accused would have answered questions submitted by family members. The signatories also expected extensive presentation of evidence and opportunities to deliver victim impact statements.

They believed those provisions offered a more realistic route to answers, although the outcome of such proceedings could not be guaranteed.

A trial, by contrast, would require prosecutors to prove the charges. Families opposed to the bargains argued that contested proceedings could place further evidence before the public. Neither course promises that every remaining question about the attacks will be answered.

Why the Supreme Court Left the 9/11 Plea Deals Withdrawn

The agreements were accepted in July 2024 by Susan Escallier, the military commissions' convening authority. Austin intervened on 2 August, maintaining that responsibility for such a consequential decision belonged to the defence secretary.

A military judge later ruled the agreements enforceable. A military appeals court subsequently concluded that withdrawal was barred because the defendants had begun fulfilling their obligations.

However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with the government in July 2025. It upheld Austin's authority and rejected the lower courts' reasoning about whether the defendants had begun performing their obligations.

Mohammed and al Hawsawi sought Supreme Court review, as did bin 'Atash in a separate petition. On 19 October, the justices declined to hear the appeals. They did not decide whether the defendants were guilty or impose any punishment.

The case still faces disputes over evidence following the defendants' treatment in CIA detention, including torture. A fourth accused man, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, is also part of the provisionally scheduled June 2028 trial. He was not party to the withdrawn agreements.

For relatives who backed the pleas, the court's refusal removes a proposed route to guilty pleas and sentencing without the death penalty. Those who favoured a trial retain that possibility, although the timetable remains conditional on pretrial progress.

The three defendants remain accused, and capital punishment is still a possible outcome if they are convicted. Twenty-five years after the attacks, families on either side of the plea-deal dispute are still waiting for the prosecution to reach a final resolution.