WASHINGTON, D.C.: A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled on July 11 to cancel a plea deal that would have let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — the man accused of planning the September 11 attacks — avoid the death penalty.

The deal had been in the works for two years and was meant to end a legal case that had dragged on for over twenty years.

The canceled agreement would have given Mohammed and two other men life in prison without parole, in exchange for pleading guilty and answering questions from the victims' families. The plot Mohammed, a Pakistani national, is accused of leading involved hijacked planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and another into a field in Pennsylvania.

The decision means that the long-running military trial at Guantanamo Bay will continue, with no clear end in sight.

Families of the 9/11 victims were divided on the proposed deal. Some believed it was the best way to finally get answers and bring closure, while others felt that only a full trial could deliver justice and reveal the whole truth. Part of the deal included a promise that the accused men would answer any remaining questions from the families.

However, former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin rejected the plea deal last year. He said that a decision as serious as whether to seek the death penalty in a case like 9/11 should be made by the defense secretary, not others.

Lawyers for the accused men argued that the deal had already been legally finalized and that Austin was too late in trying to cancel it. A military judge and an appeals court at Guantanamo Bay agreed with the defense.

But by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. disagreed and ruled that Austin acted within his rights. The majority of the court said that Austin had the authority to step in and that it was reasonable for him to say the public deserved to see the trial go forward. Two judges, one appointed by Obama and the other by Trump, agreed on this ruling. The third judge, also appointed by Obama, disagreed and said the government failed to prove the military judge made a mistake.

Brett Eagleson, whose father died in the attacks, supported the court's decision. He said that plea deals allow the government to quietly end cases without full accountability. He also doubted whether the men would have been honest in answering families' questions. "The only valid way to get answers and seek the truth is through a trial," he said.

Elizabeth Miller, who was six when her firefighter father died in the attacks, supported the plea deal. She said that after so many years — it's now 2025 and the trial hasn't even started — it might never happen. She also opposes the death penalty, which made her support the agreement.