Supreme Court Considers New 9/11 Cases

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider new cases related to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The justices have received three petitions for review, two concerning federal efforts to withdraw from plea agreements with men accused of planning the attacks, and a third from victim families seeking access to frozen Afghan funds.

These upcoming considerations follow a history of Supreme Court involvement in 9/11-related legal issues. In the decade after the attacks, the court primarily focused on the due process rights of detained individuals and the legal processes for prosecuting them.

In 2004, *Hamdi v. Rumsfeld* examined whether the government violated the Fifth Amendment by indefinitely detaining U.S. citizen Yaser Hamdi without access to an attorney or trial. Hamdi, designated an "enemy combatant" after fighting with the Taliban, challenged his detention. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, in a plurality opinion, wrote that while Congress authorized the detention of combatants, "due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker."

Also in 2004, *Rasul v. Bush* addressed the rights of noncitizens held at Guantanamo Bay. The court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled that U.S. courts had the authority to consider foreign detainees' challenges to their detention. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, stated that recognizing their right was "consistent with the historical reach of the writ of habeas corpus."

Two years later, *Hamdan v. Rumsfeld* focused on the use of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. The court determined that President George W. Bush lacked the authority to establish these commissions. Stevens wrote, "[I]n undertaking to try [Salim Ahmed] Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."

Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which re-established military commissions and barred foreign nationals labeled as "enemy combatants" from challenging their detention in Article III courts. In 2008, *Boumediene v. Bush* held that the 2006 Act constituted an "unconstitutional suspension of the writ" of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for the five-justice majority, stated, "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."

Recently, alleged 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin ‘Atash filed petitions for review. They seek to reinstate plea agreements reached in July 2024, which would involve guilty pleas, life imprisonment, and avoidance of the death penalty. These men had spent nearly two decades at Guantanamo Bay. Prosecutors described the deals as "the best path to finality and justice."

Days after the agreements were announced, then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III moved to withdraw from them, citing his ultimate authority over such matters. Two military courts initially upheld the agreements, but in July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned those decisions. The petitioners argue that Austin lacked withdrawal authority and that the D.C. Circuit improperly granted relief to the government. They ask the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit's decision and reinstate the plea agreements.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in response briefs, urged the justices to uphold the D.C. Circuit's ruling. Sauer stated that the D.C. Circuit "properly held that it had jurisdiction" and "properly cleared the way for those prosecutions to continue." He added, "Far from warranting this Court’s intervention, the decision below ensured that the ‘grave’ ‘judgment about whether [the men] should face the death penalty’ lies in politically accountable hands."

The justices will consider these two petitions at their "long conference" on September 28.

The third petition comes from family members of 9/11 victims and insurers. They seek to access $3.5 billion in frozen Afghan funds held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. These petitioners hold judgments against the Taliban for its role in supporting al-Qaeda. They argue that the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 allows them to draw from these funds because the Taliban now controls the Afghan central bank.

In 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the families and insurers could not access the funds because the money was frozen before the Taliban assumed control of the Afghan central bank. The petitioners contend that the 2nd Circuit misapplied the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act and request the Supreme Court to affirm their right to the funds. They assert, "With billions of dollars at stake, the decision below denied relief to thousands of victims of the worst terrorist attack in the nation’s history—the very people Congress enacted TRIA for."

Responses from the Taliban and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are due by October 5.