For the first time in its thirty-year existence, a secretive American court designed to remove suspected foreign terrorists was used to deport a lawful permanent resident — a 47-year-old Afghan woman from Texas named Nazira Haji Zada. Never formally charged with a crime, she was accused of concealing a plot inspired by the Islamic State and processed through a legal mechanism that permits the government to act on classified evidence her own attorneys could not examine. Her case sits at the intersection of national security and constitutional fairness, raising a question as old as the republic
US deports Afghan woman in first use of secretive terrorism court
Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident, was deported to Afghanistan after being accused of supporting Islamic State.
Refusing to show defendants the evidence against them is a plain violation of due process
Mark
So this woman was deported, but she was never actually charged with a crime. How does that work?
Mimi
The government accused her of helping hide a plot, but they didn't prosecute her criminally. Instead, they used this special deportation court that lets them use classified evidence she couldn't see. She agreed to leave rather than keep fighting.
Luke
Right, but we should be clear: she agreed after her attorney challenged the whole thing as unconstitutional. We don't know what would have happened if she'd insisted on a full hearing. The court documents don't say why she decided to consent.
Mark
And this court has been around for 30 years and never used until now?
Mimi
Exactly. Congress created it in 1996 specifically for terrorism cases, but it just sat there. This is the first time the Justice Department actually activated it.
Luke
Which is worth noting because it suggests the court was either too controversial to use, or nobody thought they needed it. Now suddenly they do. That's a shift.
Mark
What does her lawyer think will happen next?
Mimi
He's confident the court will be struck down as unconstitutional. He says you can't deport someone without showing them the evidence against them—that's basic due process.
Luke
That's his prediction, not a fact. Courts haven't ruled on it yet. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court might survive a challenge, or it might not. We're in uncharted territory.
Mark
So she's already gone, but the legal fight might just be starting?
Mimi
She's been deported to Afghanistan. But yes, the bigger question about whether this court can even exist is still open.
Il Polso
- A dormant legal weapon, unused for three decades, was suddenly activated against a Texas grandmother accused of terrorism ties — without a single criminal charge ever being filed.
- The Alien Terrorist Removal Court's core design — allowing the government to deport people on evidence they are forbidden to see — immediately drew a due process challenge from Zada's own public defender.
- Facing a process her attorney called fundamentally unfair, Zada ultimately agreed to stop contesting her removal, consenting to a designation as an 'alien terrorist' in August 2026.
- Attorney General Todd Blanche declared the outcome a national security victory, while her defender warned that her consent was not an endorsement of the court's legitimacy.
- The case now leaves an open wound in American immigration law: whether this obscure court will be used again, or whether a future constitutional challenge will finally force a reckoning with its existence.
For the first time in its thirty-year existence, a secretive American court designed to remove suspected foreign terrorists was used to deport a lawful permanent resident — a 47-year-old Afghan woman from Texas named Nazira Haji Zada. Never formally charged with a crime, she was accused of concealing a plot inspired by the Islamic State and processed through a legal mechanism that permits the government to act on classified evidence her own attorneys could not examine. Her case sits at the intersection of national security and constitutional fairness, raising a question as old as the republic itself: how much secrecy can justice bear before it ceases to be justice?
Nazira Haji Zada had lived in Texas as a lawful permanent resident for years when, in July 2026, her arrest triggered the first-ever activation of a court that Congress had quietly created in 1996 and then left untouched for three decades. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was built for exactly this kind of case — suspected foreign terrorists on American soil — but its defining feature had always made it legally combustible: the government may use classified evidence that defendants and their attorneys are barred from reviewing or challenging.
The Justice Department accused Zada of helping conceal a failed Islamic State-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day 2024. She was never charged with a crime. Her son and son-in-law had already pleaded guilty to related offenses the year before. The evidence against her remained locked behind classification walls, invisible to her legal team.
Her public defender, Matthew Farley, initially fought back hard, arguing that dragging a lawful permanent resident into a proceeding while withholding the evidence against her was a plain violation of constitutional due process. But by August, court documents showed Zada had agreed to accept the designation of 'alien terrorist' and stop contesting her removal. Chief Judge Joan Ericksen approved her deportation, and she was sent back to Afghanistan.
Attorney General Todd Blanche celebrated the result as a landmark national security victory. Farley's response was pointed: Zada's consent, he insisted, should not be read as any validation of the court's legitimacy, and he predicted the mechanism would eventually be struck down once a judge confronted its constitutionality directly.
What the case leaves behind is a legal and moral question mark. A court that existed for thirty years without ever being used has now been used once — and whether it will be used again, or whether it will survive the constitutional scrutiny it has so far avoided, remains entirely unresolved.
Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan woman who had built a life in Texas as a lawful permanent resident, was deported from the United States in September 2026 after agreeing to stop contesting her removal. Her case marked the first time the U.S. Department of Justice had ever used a secretive court designed three decades earlier to expel what Congress termed "alien terrorists"—a legal mechanism that had sat dormant for 30 years until her arrest in July.
The Justice Department accused Zada of helping conceal a failed plot inspired by the Islamic State to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day 2024. She was never charged with any crime. Her son and son-in-law, however, pleaded guilty to related charges the previous year. The evidence against her remained largely hidden from her and her legal team, locked behind the classified-evidence provisions of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a forum created by Congress in 1996 that permits the government to pursue deportations using information defendants cannot see or challenge directly.
When Zada's public defender, Matthew Farley, initially challenged the proceedings, he argued the secretive process violated her constitutional right to due process. The court's structure—which bars defendants from reviewing the classified evidence marshaled against them—appeared to him a fundamental breach of fairness. But in August, according to court documents unsealed on Friday, Zada agreed that she was an "alien terrorist" subject to removal. Joan Ericksen, the court's chief judge, subsequently approved her deportation.
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche called the outcome "a landmark case" and "a win for national security and the rule of law," framing Zada's removal as part of the Trump administration's broader push to accelerate deportations. The case arrived amid a series of aggressive immigration enforcement actions that have defined the current administration's approach to the issue.
Yet Farley's statement, released alongside the unsealed documents, carried a sharp caveat. He emphasized that Zada's decision to consent to removal "should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy." He restated his core objection: "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." He predicted the court would ultimately be struck down as unconstitutional once a judge directly addressed the question.
What remains uncertain is whether the Justice Department will invoke this obscure legal tool again. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court had never been used in its three decades of existence until now. Whether Zada's case opens a new chapter in deportation proceedings or remains an isolated instance depends partly on how aggressively the administration chooses to pursue such cases—and partly on whether courts will allow the mechanism to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Citazioni salienti
This landmark case, resulting in the prompt removal of this alien terrorist to her country of origin, is a win for national security and the rule of law.— U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche
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.— Matthew Farley, Zada's public defender
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Al-Monitor ↗
Crime & Justice