In a development with far-reaching implications for U.S. immigration and national security law, the Department of Justice has announced the removal of an Afghan national through a specialized federal court that had sat dormant for three decades.
In the first-ever case before the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), Nazira Haji Zada, 47, an Afghan national previously residing in Fort Worth, Texas, was removed from the United States after conceding that she is an alien terrorist.
The Justice Department announced the resolution on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, although the woman was deported last month.
The ATRC issued an order of removal on August 20 that was unsealed following her return to her country of origin.
The Underlying Terrorism Plot
The case stems from a foiled ISIS-inspired attack planned for Election Day 2024.
Prosecutors alleged Nazira Haji Zada supported a plan by her son and son-in-law to commit an Islamic State-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024, according to court documents.
Tawhedi and Abdullah Haji Zada were arrested on October 7, 2024, after purchasing firearms and ammunition to be used in an Election Day terrorist attack from an undercover FBI employee.
The Justice Department said Tawhedi admitted conspiring to obtain two AK-47-style rifles, 500 rounds of ammunition, and 10 magazines for an attack planned for November 5, 2024.
Federal authorities disrupted the plot before it could be carried out.
According to the DOJ,
as the family "matriarch," U.S. authorities alleged Haji Zada worked to "radicalize" her family and "formally pledged loyalty to ISIS," and that she and her son-in-law "worked to indoctrinate her children with ISIS ideology."
According to the criminal complaint, to raise funds for the attack, the family sold off property including furniture, computers, a mobile phone, and vehicles, and Zada signed a contract to sell the family house.
Notably,
she was never charged with a crime, but her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty to related charges.
Nazira's son Abdullah, who was 17 at the time of his arrest, entered his guilty plea as an adult and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
What Is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court?
In 1996, Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a specialized court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate five U.S. district court judges to review applications for the removal from the United States of alien terrorists.
Judges serve for staggered, renewable five-year terms and must be drawn from different judicial circuits.
Congress established the court in 1996 through a law that advanced sweeping and controversial criminal justice and counterterrorism reforms in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing.
It was created to address concerns that standard deportation procedures might provide insufficient protection for classified evidence regarding terrorist activities.
Unlike standard immigration courts (which are part of the executive branch), ATRC judges are Article III (independent) federal judges.
The ATRC's two-step process is critical to understanding how the court functions.
First, the government must submit an application showing it has probable cause to believe that an immigrant is an "alien terrorist" and that regular immigration deportation procedures would pose a risk to national security. If granted, the government moves to a removal hearing with a higher evidentiary standard, and the immigrant has an opportunity to rebut the government's arguments.
This was the first case ever brought before the ATRC, which Congress established decades ago, and which no previous administration had used.
While the constitutionality of the ATRC has not been ruled on, legal scholars have speculated that it was left dormant over due process concerns surrounding the possible use of secret evidence in its proceedings.
Timeline of the Case
U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche filed the papers for her removal on July 15 this year.
Zada appeared before the ATRC's Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen in Washington, D.C. on July 30.
Reading from prepared remarks, Judge Ericksen acknowledged that "this is the court's first case, and the court is in the early stage of implementing procedures."
Haji Zada "conceded that she is an alien terrorist and waived appeal of the removal order, terminating her previous status," the department said in a press release.
Zada is now permanently inadmissible to the United States.
Due Process Concerns and Constitutional Questions
The case has sparked serious debate over the constitutionality of the ATRC's procedures.
Federal public defender Matthew Farley told Chief Judge Ericksen during the initial hearing, "This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional."
Farley said the case represents "a runaround to bringing a criminal case" because it relies on a lower evidentiary standard.
Haji Zada's court-appointed attorneys, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, contested the constitutionality of the case in court filings, adding that they weren't permitted to review evidence.
The evidence supporting the removal remains classified, the government said in court documents, because it poses a risk to national security.
Her defense team issued a forceful statement following the removal.
"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," the defense lawyers said.
They added, "We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue."
However,
Zada's case did not produce a definitive constitutional ruling on those issues because she conceded removability and waived her right to appeal.
Legal experts say a future case in which a defendant challenges the government's evidence could present a much more complicated legal fight.
Practical Implications for Immigrants and Visa Holders
This case carries significant implications for the immigrant community and legal practitioners alike.
For lawful permanent residents (green card holders): This case demonstrates that even long-held LPR status does not insulate individuals from removal through extraordinary legal mechanisms.
Haji Zada came to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 2018, and her husband was employed at the Bagram Air Base from 2009 to 2016.
Despite these ties, her LPR status was terminated through the ATRC proceedings.
Regarding the scope of future use:
Legal experts say the court is unlikely to become a tool for mass deportations, as every case requires approval from senior Justice Department officials, review by a judge, and a full hearing before a removal order can be issued — a process that could make it difficult to use the court on a large scale.
Classified evidence risks:
Under the statute, the alleged "alien terrorists" are given very limited information about the evidence the government has gathered to justify their quick deportation.
For LPRs, however, there are some additional safeguards.
Special procedures apply for "an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" — in such cases, the presiding judge must designate a "special attorney to assist the alien" who may review the classified information.
A new enforcement tool in the government's arsenal: Attorney General Todd Blanche characterized the outcome as "a win for national security and the rule of law," adding that those who "support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States."
Blanche said the case showed the department would use "every tool at its disposal" to protect the country.
Looking Ahead
The activation of the ATRC after 30 years of dormancy represents a notable shift in immigration enforcement strategy.
Typically, the Justice Department seeks to convict and imprison those who are considered a terrorist threat rather than deport them.
The decision to use the ATRC — particularly in a case where the respondent was never criminally charged — signals a willingness to deploy previously untested legal mechanisms.
The unanswered constitutional questions surrounding the court's procedures ensure that this case is likely just the beginning of a larger legal debate. Immigration attorneys, civil liberties organizations, and national security scholars will be watching closely to see whether and how the DOJ uses the ATRC in future cases — and whether the court's procedures can survive a full constitutional challenge when a respondent chooses to fight rather than concede.
For now, practitioners should advise noncitizen clients that the government has demonstrated both the will and the capacity to activate long-dormant enforcement tools, and that even lawful permanent residents may face proceedings in forums with significantly restricted evidentiary protections compared to traditional immigration or criminal courts.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you or someone you know has questions about removal proceedings or immigration enforcement actions, consult with a qualified immigration attorney.