Legal authority of Defense Secretary confirmed in divided decision
A federal appeals court in the United States has invalidated plea agreements reached with three individuals accused of planning the September 11 attacks, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The ruling further complicates a case that has stalled for more than twenty years.
Focus on the Defense Secretary’s Powers
The core legal issue was whether former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had the authority to cancel the plea deals just two days after their announcement by a military court in Guantánamo Bay. These agreements would have allowed the accused to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences. Austin stated he was caught off guard and preferred the case proceed toward a death penalty trial.
Defense lawyers countered that Austin had previously delegated authority to approve such agreements and could not rescind them after the fact. Both a military judge and a military appeals panel had supported this view, ruling that Austin exceeded his authority and acted too late.
Judges divided, future of case uncertain
Despite earlier rulings, a three-judge panel at the federal appeals level ruled 2–1 that Austin did, in fact, have the legal authority to reverse the deals. One judge dissented, criticizing the majority for disregarding long-standing principles of deference to military justice.
Defense teams are now considering whether to appeal to the full appellate court or take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Attorneys stated they will confer with their clients before deciding on next steps.
Justice delayed, families divided
The 9/11 trial has faced ongoing delays due to legal disputes over torture-derived evidence and classified information. Victims’ families remain divided: some support plea deals for closure, while others demand a trial as the path to justice.
If no plea deals proceed, legal experts warn the case may drag on for decades—potentially until 2050.
