First Use of Secretive Alien Terrorist Court Ends in Deportation

Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan citizen and permanent resident of Texas, has been deported from the United States in what officials describe as the first known use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. According to the US Department of Justice and her legal team, Haji Zada chose to consent to her removal rather than continue arguing her case before the secretive tribunal. The decision marks a significant procedural shift in how the federal government handles non-citizens accused of terrorism-related activities when standard evidence is classified.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never heard a case until proceedings began in July. It is designed for non-US citizens facing terrorism charges where the evidence is confidential and deemed a national security risk. While prosecutors characterized the outcome as a victory for national security, the defense has raised serious constitutional concerns, arguing that the process violates fundamental due process rights by denying attorneys access to the evidence used against their client.

Charges Rest on Family Connections

Haji Zada was never formally charged with a criminal offense. However, federal prosecutors accused her of serving as the matriarch of a group and working to radicalize her family. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhed, were separately tried and convicted of plotting a mass shooting on Election Day in 2024. The plot was allegedly inspired by the group calling itself Islamic State. Prosecutors argued that her influence over the family members constituted a threat, leading to the invocation of the special removal proceedings.

Legal Challenge Over Due Process

Court-appointed public defenders for Haji Zada stated that they were denied access to the evidence in her case. In a statement to The Washington Post, attorneys Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras argued that dragging lawful permanent residents into court while refusing to show them the evidence is a plain violation of due process. They emphasized that their client’s consent to removal should not be viewed as an endorsement of the court’s legitimacy. The lawyers expressed confidence that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be struck down as unconstitutional if a judge were asked to address the issue directly.

Official Response and Future Implications

US Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the case represents a win for national security and the rule of law. He asserted that those who support or condone terrorism should not be living in the United States, citing this first-ever case as evidence that the Department of Justice will use every tool available to protect the country. According to GN geopolitics/terror (en-US), this development highlights a growing tension between national security measures and the procedural rights of immigrants. The next critical question is whether other cases will be channeled into this secretive system, potentially setting a broader precedent for the removal of non-citizens based on classified evidence without a traditional trial.