The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on Friday threw out plea agreements for three Guantánamo detainees accused of conspiring in the September 11 attacks, clearing the way for the government to pursue the death penalty more than two decades after the tragedy that claimed nearly 3,000 lives.

The 2–1 ruling holds that then Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III lawfully exercised his authority when, in August 2024, he rescinded plea deals that had been accepted days earlier by the military commission’s convening authority. The plea deals were affirmed by a military judge in November 2024, but the Department of Defense appealed.

Writing for the majority, Judge Patricia Millett, joined by Judge Neomi Rao, concluded that the secretary’s action was within the scope of his delegated powers and justified, given the “unique and important national security interests” at stake. Judge Robert Wilkins dissented.

The court granted the government’s extraordinary request for writs of mandamus and prohibition, effectively barring the military judge from accepting guilty pleas under the rescinded agreements. As a result, prosecutors must now decide whether to resume capital litigation against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin ‘Atash, and Mustafa al Hawsawi—three men held at Guantánamo Bay since 2006. Mohammed, who is accused of masterminding the September 11 attacks in which hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, was captured in 2003 and has remained at the US detention facility in Guantánamo ever since.

The now-defunct plea deals were the product of more than two years of negotiations. Under their terms, the defendants would have admitted guilt in exchange for life sentences. Austin’s reversal prompted a legal standoff over whether the government could walk away from its own agreements after securing the defendants’ cooperation. Lower military courts, including the Pentagon’s own Court of Military Commission Review, had held that the United States was bound by the terms of the deals. The DC Circuit disagreed.

The court’s reasoning turned on two key determinations. First, it found that Austin, as the superior convening authority, retained the power to rescind any prior delegation and to act personally to withdraw the agreements. Second, the panel concluded that the defendants had not yet begun “performance” under the deals, a requirement under military commission rules before a plea agreement becomes irrevocable. The majority held that remaining silent during a pretrial suppression hearing was not sufficient to constitute performance.

Judge Wilkins wrote a sharp dissent and compared the government’s withdrawal to hiring a contractor, watching him paint half a fence, and then refusing to pay. He argued that by signing extensive stipulations of fact, formal admissions outlining their roles in the attacks, the defendants had clearly begun fulfilling their obligations under the plea agreements.

The defense has not said whether it will appeal. Without a plea deal, the case returns to the pretrial phase, where longstanding legal and logistical hurdles remain, including whether statements made after the defendants’ torture can be used as evidence.