For the first time in three decades, a court created by Congress in 1996 but never used has been called into session — not as a formality, but as a live test of how far national security powers can reach into the lives of lawful residents. Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan green card holder in Fort Worth with no criminal record, now faces deportation through a tribunal that permits the government to present classified evidence she cannot see, contest, or legally challenge. Her case — rooted in allegations that she supported her son and son-in-law's foiled 2024 Election Day plot — forces a
DOJ Invokes Secretive Terrorism Court for First Time in 30 Years Against Afghan Woman
Nazira Haji Zada faces deportation to Afghanistan; her son Abdullah was sentenced to 15 years in prison with mandatory deportation after release.
She cannot review the evidence against her, cannot challenge how it was collected.
Mark
So this court has existed for thirty years and never been used? That seems almost unbelievable.
Mimi
It was created in 1996 specifically for cases where classified information made traditional deportation impossible. But the government struggled to find a suitable case until now.
Luke
Right—and we should be clear: the government says it struggled. We don't actually know if there were other candidates they rejected or if this is genuinely the first one they felt confident enough to pursue.
Mark
What makes Nazira Zada's case different? Why now?
Mimi
Her son and son-in-law were arrested for buying rifles and ammunition as part of an alleged ISIS-inspired plot for Election Day 2024. They've both pleaded guilty. The government says she supported them—that she radicalized the family and helped plan a relocation to ISIS territory.
Luke
But she herself has never been charged with a crime. The allegations come from an FBI summary citing a "reliable source." That's not nothing, but it's also not a conviction or even an indictment.
Mark
Can she see the evidence against her?
Mimi
No. That's the whole point of this court. She can't review classified evidence, can't challenge how it was collected, can't cross-examine sources. Her lawyer can't even show her what the government has.
Luke
Which means we can't independently verify most of what's being alleged. We know her son and son-in-law pleaded guilty to gun crimes and terrorism support. We know the government claims she supported them. But the classified evidence—the thing that actually matters—stays hidden.
Mark
What happens if the judge agrees she should be deported?
Mimi
She would be removed from the United States. She has a green card, so she's a lawful permanent resident, but that status can be revoked in these proceedings.
Luke
And Afghanistan is where she'd be sent. Her family has ties there, but it's also where the alleged ISIS territory they were supposedly planning to relocate to is located. That's worth noting.
Mark
Does she have any recourse?
Mimi
Not really. The structure of the court doesn't allow for the kind of legal challenges you'd have in a criminal case. The hearing is public, but the evidence isn't.
Luke
So the public gets to watch a proceeding where the most important information is invisible. That's the design, but it's worth saying out loud.
Le Pouls
- A court that existed only on paper for 30 years has suddenly been activated, and a permanent resident with no criminal charges faces deportation through it.
- The government alleges Zada helped radicalize her family and supported an ISIS-inspired mass shooting plot targeting American voters on Election Day 2024 — claims she cannot legally dispute because the evidence is classified.
- Her son, arrested at 17 for buying weapons from an undercover FBI agent, is already sentenced to 15 years and faces deportation; her son-in-law pleaded guilty to conspiring to support ISIS.
- The court's structure — modeled on a secret surveillance tribunal — allows judges to hear the government's case without the accused present, stripping away the adversarial process that anchors American legal tradition.
- As of the eve of the hearing, Zada had no confirmed legal representation, and the court's own website had only been live for two weeks — underscoring just how untested this machinery truly is.
For the first time in three decades, a court created by Congress in 1996 but never used has been called into session — not as a formality, but as a live test of how far national security powers can reach into the lives of lawful residents. Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan green card holder in Fort Worth with no criminal record, now faces deportation through a tribunal that permits the government to present classified evidence she cannot see, contest, or legally challenge. Her case — rooted in allegations that she supported her son and son-in-law's foiled 2024 Election Day plot — forces a reckoning with the tension between security imperatives and the due process rights that define a just society. What happens in that Washington courtroom will quietly shape the boundaries of belonging in America for years to come.
On a Thursday morning in Washington, a federal judge presided over a hearing that had never occurred in the thirty years since Congress authorized it. Nazira Haji Zada — a 47-year-old Afghan woman, green card holder, and Fort Worth resident with no criminal record — appeared before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a secretive tribunal activated for the very first time to seek her deportation.
The Justice Department alleges she is an "alien terrorist" who supported a foiled Islamic State-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day 2024. The alleged conspirators were her own family: her son Abdullah, just 17 when arrested for purchasing rifles and ammunition from an undercover FBI agent, and her son-in-law Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to ISIS. Both men were accused of planning to relocate female family members — including Zada — to ISIS-controlled territory in Afghanistan before carrying out their attack. Abdullah was sentenced to 15 years in prison and faces deportation upon release.
An unclassified FBI summary claims Zada "pledged loyalty to ISIS," worked to indoctrinate her children, and helped conceal the family's radicalization from her husband — a man who had worked at Bagram Air Base supporting U.S. forces and received his green card through that service. Zada has not been charged with any crime.
What makes the court so extraordinary — and so contested — is its architecture. Proceedings are conducted in secret, ex parte and in camera. The person facing removal cannot review the classified evidence, cannot challenge how it was gathered, and is absent when the government makes its case to the judge. The court is modeled on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and its five judges all hold dual appointments on both tribunals, selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Until the Justice Department filed its application against Zada on July 15, officials had described the court as a "zombie" — existing in statute but never summoned to life. A website for the tribunal was only launched two days later. Zada is entitled to government-appointed counsel, though that attorney cannot share classified evidence with her. As this machinery turns for the first time, the case raises urgent questions about what due process means when the evidence against you is permanently beyond your reach.
On Thursday morning, a federal judge in Washington will preside over a hearing that has never happened before in three decades. Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan woman living in Fort Worth, Texas, will appear before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court—a secretive tribunal created by Congress in 1996 but never actually used until now. The Justice Department is seeking her deportation based on allegations that she supported a foiled Islamic State-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day 2024.
Zada holds a green card. She has no criminal record. She has never been charged with any terrorism crime. Yet the government alleges she is what the law calls an "alien terrorist"—a designation that allows the government to pursue removal using classified evidence she will not be permitted to see, challenge, or legally contest. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche described her in a statement as "the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day."
The allegations center on her son and son-in-law. Abdullah Haji Zada was only 17 when he was arrested in October 2024 for purchasing two AK-47 style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent. He was charged as an adult and, at age 18, pleaded guilty to gun crimes. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison and will be deported to Afghanistan after his release. Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 28, pleaded guilty in June 2025 to conspiring to provide material support to ISIS. Both men were accused of planning to relocate female and juvenile male family members, including Nazira Zada, to Islamic State-controlled territory in Afghanistan while they carried out their alleged attack.
In an unclassified FBI summary filed with the court, the government alleged that Zada "supported" the conspiracy. The FBI claimed she "pledged loyalty to ISIS" and "worked to indoctrinate her children with ISIS ideology," citing information from what it described as a "reliable source." The summary stated that Zada "worked with Tawhedi to radicalize the family and to conceal their pro-ISIS teaching and planned family relocation to ISIS-controlled territory from her unsuspecting husband." Her husband, according to court records, was employed at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2016 and was granted a green card under a program for Afghans who assisted U.S. forces.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court represents a stark departure from ordinary criminal procedure. Targets of removal proceedings—including lawful permanent residents—cannot review the classified evidence against them. They cannot legally challenge how that evidence was collected. The proceedings are conducted ex parte and in camera, meaning the person facing deportation is not present when the government presents its case to the judge. The court was modeled on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, another secret tribunal that reviews surveillance warrant requests. All five judges on the Alien Terrorist Removal Court also sit on FISC and are appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, who sits on the federal bench in Minnesota, is the chief judge and will preside over Zada's hearing.
Until the Justice Department filed its application against Zada on July 15, the court had existed only on paper—what officials called a "zombie" court. Congress created it three decades ago precisely for cases like this one, where national security concerns made traditional deportation proceedings impractical. But the government had never found a suitable test case until now. If the application is accepted, the case moves to a removal stage where a public hearing is conducted and the Justice Department releases an unclassified summary—a website for the court was only launched on July 17.
Zada is entitled to government-appointed counsel under the court's rules, though that attorney cannot share classified evidence with her. As of Wednesday, it was unclear who would represent her at Thursday's 11 a.m. hearing. The case marks the first time in 30 years that this secretive machinery has been activated, and it raises immediate questions about due process protections for permanent residents when national security classifications shield evidence from judicial scrutiny.
Citations marquantes
The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day.— Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche
Nazira worked with Tawhedi to radicalize the family and to conceal their pro-ISIS teaching and planned family relocation to ISIS-controlled territory from her unsuspecting husband.— FBI summary filed in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur CBS News ↗
Crime & Justice