For the first time since its creation nearly three decades ago, the U.S. government has used a specialized court. This court was designed to remove people accused of terrorist activity from the country.
A federal judge ordered the deportation of Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident originally from Afghanistan. She agreed to removal proceedings in a case involving allegations that she supported an Islamic State-inspired terrorism plot.
The case marks the first known use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. This little-known legal mechanism was established by Congress in 1996.
A First for the Alien Terrorist Removal Court
The special court was created to allow the Justice Department to pursue deportation cases involving alleged terrorist activity. Importantly, it permits the government to rely on classified information that officials say could threaten national security if disclosed.
Unlike criminal proceedings, civil immigration cases generally require a lower standard of proof.
The Haji Zada case represents the first time the court has been used. This is significant since it was established more than 30 years ago.
Government Alleges Support for an ISIS-Inspired Plot
According to court documents, prosecutors alleged that Haji Zada supported a plan involving her son and son-in-law. The plan was to carry out a mass-casualty attack inspired by ISIS on Election Day in 2024.
Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges after authorities accused him of helping plan the attack.
Prosecutors alleged that the family attempted to raise money for the planned attack by selling personal property. In addition, some family members intended to relocate to an area controlled by ISIS.
The government also alleged that Haji Zada had formally pledged allegiance to ISIS. Furthermore, she played a role in exposing family members to the group’s ideology.
Haji Zada Agreed to Deportation
Haji Zada was arrested at her home in Fort Worth, Texas, in July.
Rather than pursuing criminal charges against her, the Justice Department initiated civil proceedings through the special removal court.
In August, Haji Zada waived her right to challenge her detention and agreed to be deported. U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen subsequently ordered her removal to Afghanistan.
Her admission in the civil case will not be used against her in criminal proceedings.
Attorneys Challenge the Court’s Constitutionality
Haji Zada’s court-appointed attorneys, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, challenged the constitutionality of the proceedings.
They argued that their client and her lawyers were not given access to the classified evidence used to support the government’s case.
The attorneys maintained that denying a lawful permanent resident and her legal representatives the opportunity to review the evidence raises serious due-process concerns.
They also emphasized that Haji Zada’s decision to accept deportation should not be interpreted as recognition that the special court itself is constitutional.
Why Classified Evidence Matters
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established partly to address a difficult problem for national security cases. Specifically, it addressed how the government can use sensitive intelligence without publicly disclosing information that could reveal sources, methods or other classified capabilities.
The Justice Department has argued that some evidence cannot be released because doing so could create national security risks.
Critics, however, warn that withholding evidence from the person facing removal and their attorneys can make it difficult. This can make it difficult to meaningfully challenge the government’s allegations.
That tension between national security and constitutional due process is likely to remain central to future cases involving the court.
A Broader Shift in Immigration Enforcement
The case comes as the Trump administration continues to pursue aggressive immigration enforcement policies. It is also part of broader efforts to remove people it considers national security threats.
Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the Justice Department’s request to use the special court. He described the case as an example of the department using every available legal tool to protect the country.
The unprecedented proceeding could therefore become a test case. It may show how the administration intends to use specialized immigration authorities in terrorism-related cases.
What Happens Next?
The first case before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has already resulted in a deportation order. However, the constitutional questions surrounding the court remain unresolved.
Legal experts and civil liberties advocates are likely to closely examine future cases. They may see whether those cases challenge the government’s ability to rely on classified evidence without providing defendants meaningful access to it.
The case could ultimately have implications beyond Haji Zada. It may potentially determine how the United States balances national security concerns with due-process protections in future terrorism-related immigration proceedings.
