A military judge has thrown out a confession made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The decision adds another troubling complication to a case already defined by decades of delay.

Lt. Col. Michael Schrama ruled Friday that statements Mohammed gave investigators in 2007 were not made voluntarily, according to the New York Post.

Sources familiar with the decision told the newspaper that Schrama removed those statements from the prosecution's case.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

The ruling strips prosecutors of potentially significant evidence as they prepare for a trial that is still nearly two years away.

For families who have waited since 2001 for a courtroom reckoning, the machinery of justice continues to move at a maddening crawl.

Mohammed has been held at the United States military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since 2003.

He is accused of serving as the chief architect of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people and changed the nation forever.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Earlier in the week, Schrama scheduled the trial to begin in June 2028.

Mohammed is expected to be tried alongside Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Atash, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

Military prosecutors had requested a January 2027 opening date, but Schrama rejected that proposed schedule.

He said it would not allow enough time for the "resolution of pretrial evidentiary and compliance motions."

That leaves the victims' families staring at yet another lengthy wait, even as the nation marks the twenty fifth anniversary of the attacks.

The legal process surrounding Mohammed has already stretched across presidential administrations, military proceedings, political disputes, and repeated courtroom setbacks.

The case has been burdened by postponements and unsuccessful attempts to settle it through plea agreements.

Rather than delivering a clear and timely accounting for the worst terrorist attack on American soil, the system has become a monument to delay and procedural paralysis.

WATCH:

In 2024, Mohammed, bin Attash, and al Hawsawi agreed to admit their roles in the attacks under a proposed plea agreement.

In exchange, they would receive life sentences and avoid the death penalty.

The agreement also required the defendants to answer questions submitted by the families of those killed.

That provision offered relatives a possible opportunity to obtain information about the planning and execution of the attacks after years of uncertainty.

Many families strongly criticized the arrangement because it removed the possibility of capital punishment.

Their outrage was hardly surprising, given the scale of the carnage and the long wait for those accused of planning it to face a full trial.

The Biden administration later withdrew the plea agreement amid the backlash, setting off another round of litigation.

Washington once again proved capable of turning a demand for basic justice into a procedural maze with no exit in sight.

Schrama's decision to exclude Mohammed's 2007 statements now threatens to complicate the prosecution further.

Questions surrounding interrogations, detention conditions, admissible evidence, and pretrial compliance have repeatedly consumed the military commission process.

Fox News Digital contacted military prosecutors regarding the ruling.

The advocacy organization 9/11 Families United declined to comment on the judge's latest decision.

The case is now scheduled to reach trial almost twenty seven years after hijacked airplanes struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Americans were promised accountability, but the families have instead received delay after delay while lawyers and officials argue over process.

Mohammed and his co defendants remain at Guantánamo Bay as the legal battle continues.

Barring another postponement, June 2028 may finally bring the trial that victims' relatives and the country have awaited for far too long.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.