Afghan woman deported in first case for obscure terrorism court

Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan woman living in Fort Worth, Texas, was arrested in July and brought before a court that had not heard a case in three decades. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, established in 1996 but dormant until this summer, was activated by the Justice Department to hear allegations that Haji Zada had supported an Islamic State-inspired plot. On Friday, the department announced she had agreed to be deported to Afghanistan, waiving her right to contest the charges.

The case marked the first time the specialized court had been used since its creation. The Justice Department alleged that Haji Zada was a supporter of the Islamic State and identified her as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men convicted in Oklahoma of plotting an attack on Election Day 2024. The plot was disrupted before any violence occurred. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison. Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State; prosecutors documented that he had ordered AK-47 rifles, liquidated family assets, and purchased one-way tickets to Afghanistan for his wife and child.

An FBI memo dated July 15 stated the bureau had "developed information" that Zada was an Islamic State supporter who had her children pledge loyalty to the terrorist group. The allegations formed the basis for the Justice Department's petition to the court. At a hearing on July 30, Judge Joan Ericksen presided over what was the court's first proceeding in its 30-year history. Haji Zada's attorney, Matthew Farley, argued that the Trump administration's activation of the court violated her constitutional rights and urged the judge to dismiss the case and release his client immediately.

Haji Zada's legal team objected strenuously to the proceedings. They argued that the court's practice of withholding evidence from defendants and their lawyers constituted a fundamental violation of due process. "Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process," her attorneys stated in a Friday statement. They added that they were "confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue." The lawyers made clear that Haji Zada's decision to consent to deportation "should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy."

By agreeing to removal, Haji Zada avoided what could have been a prolonged legal battle that would have tested both the court's authority and the strength of the government's case against her. Court filings, including the judge's August 20 removal order, remained sealed until after she reached Afghanistan. Attorney General Todd Blanche characterized the outcome as "a win for national security and the rule of law," stating that "those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States." Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin echoed the sentiment, saying the government would "find them, and we will use every lawful tool available to remove them."

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court operates under a specific legal framework: it has authority to conduct deportation proceedings for individuals the Justice Department designates as "alien terrorists." The court is composed of five federal judges appointed by the U.S. chief justice, drawn from different districts across the country. The court's activation after three decades of inactivity signals the Trump administration's intent to deploy the mechanism as part of its immigration enforcement strategy. What remains unresolved is whether the court's procedures—particularly its use of classified evidence withheld from defendants—will survive constitutional scrutiny if another case reaches a judge willing to rule on the question.