Mohammad v. United States (9/11 plea-deal cert petition)

Will the Supreme Court turn away the 9/11 plea-deal appeal?

Court: Supreme Court of the United States (cert from D.C. Cir.), No. 26-13
Division: Appeals & Post-Conviction

Where the case stands

In 2024 the defendants signed plea agreements that would have taken the death penalty off the table; then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin moved to withdraw them. The military judge and the Court of Military Commission Review held the withdrawal came too late, but in July 2025 a divided D.C. Circuit panel granted the government's mandamus petition and threw the deals out. Mohammad and al-Hawsawi have petitioned the Supreme Court; the Solicitor General has filed a brief in opposition, and a victims' amicus brief was filed in September 2026.

Background

Khalid Shaikh Mohammad is the alleged architect of the September 11 attacks; Mustafa al-Hawsawi is an alleged financial facilitator. Both have been in pretrial military-commission proceedings at Guantanamo Bay since 2008.

Charges

Capital charges before the Guantanamo military commission arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks, including conspiracy and murder counts covering the 2,976 victims

The arguments

Prosecution/State: The government argues the D.C. Circuit correctly restored the Defense Secretary's authority: political leadership, not a military judge, decides whether the alleged 9/11 conspirators can plead out of the death penalty, and withdrawal came before any performance of the agreements.

Defense: Petitioners argue the plea agreements were valid and already in performance when Austin tried to revoke them, and that the D.C. Circuit vastly exceeded the narrow bounds of mandamus review in overriding two military tribunals — leaving a 18-year-old case with, in their words, no end in sight.

The record

Cert-stage briefing. The full cert-stage record is public: the petition, the Solicitor General's opposition, and the September 2026 victims' amicus brief.
D.C. Circuit mandamus ruling. Divided July 2025 panel decision vacating the plea agreements, with a dissent — the ruling under review.

The line-setting read at the time this market opened

Cert grants are rare and the Solicitor General opposes review, which historically points strongly to denial; the case's extraordinary profile, the split panel below, and separation-of-powers questions about mandamus give the petition a real but minority chance.

Awaiting decision — The Supreme Court's decision whether to grant or deny certiorari — expected at a conference in the coming months (fall/winter 2026). Denial leaves the plea deals vacated; a grant sets merits briefing on whether the agreements must be enforced. The ruling is posted here, and on the board, the moment it's confirmed by two or more independent news organizations.

Take the bench →

Sources

Public record

About this library

Every case on Bet! GUILTY or NOT? is a real, currently pending or recently decided court matter. This library carries the casebrief and the sources for every case on the docket — open or decided. Browse the full docket library.