The Alien Terrorist Removal Court has been used for the first time since its creation, resulting in the deportation of an Afghan woman accused of helping conceal a foiled plot linked to the Islamic State. The US Department of Justice announced on Friday that Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident who had been living in Texas, was removed to Afghanistan after agreeing not to contest her case further.
Haji Zada was never charged with a crime. However, her son and son-in-law pleaded guilty last year to related offences connected to a failed, Islamic State-inspired plan to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day 2024. Her son is currently serving a fifteen-year sentence for obtaining firearms in support of a terrorist organisation.
What Is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court
Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996, but the tribunal had remained dormant for thirty years until the current administration activated it this summer. The court was designed to give the government a mechanism to deport non-citizens identified as terrorism threats while relying on classified evidence that need not be disclosed to the person facing removal or their legal counsel.
That feature has long made the court controversial. Legal observers have noted that previous administrations declined to invoke it, possibly out of concern that a constitutional challenge could result in the entire framework being struck down. The Haji Zada case marks the tribunal’s first substantive test, and its outcome may determine whether the Justice Department relies on it more frequently going forward.
Details of the Nazira Haji Zada Deportation Case
According to newly unsealed court filings, Haji Zada was arrested in July after the Justice Department accused her of assisting in concealing the Election Day plot. Court documents describe her as a Dallas-based woman who did not speak, read, or write in English. Her attorneys initially argued that the secretive process used against her violated her right to due process, since defendants in such proceedings are not permitted to review the classified material used to justify removal.
Last month, however, Haji Zada conceded that she was an “alien terrorist” subject to removal and waived her right to appeal. Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, who presides over the court, approved the deportation order on 20 August, and the decision was unsealed on Friday alongside the department’s announcement.
Government and Defence Reactions
Attorney General Todd Blanche described the outcome as a win for national security, calling it a landmark case that resulted in the prompt removal of an alien terrorist to her country of origin. FBI Director Kash Patel characterised the deportation as a significant step in efforts to protect the United States from terrorism-linked threats.
Haji Zada’s public defenders, Mary Petras and Matthew Farley, pushed back strongly against the process itself. They said that dragging lawful permanent residents into proceedings while withholding the evidence used against them from both the individual and their lawyers amounts to a clear violation of due process. They further stated that their client’s decision to consent to removal should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the court’s legitimacy, adding that they remain confident the framework will eventually be found unconstitutional once a court is asked to examine it directly.
Why the Case Matters
The Nazira Haji Zada deportation case is widely regarded as a test of how far the government can extend its use of classified evidence in immigration enforcement. Legal commentators have suggested that, having secured a swift resolution once the process was invoked, the Justice Department is unlikely to let the mechanism sit unused again. Others have cautioned that reviving a court built around secrecy, at a time when immigration enforcement has already intensified, raises significant concerns about transparency and fairness in future proceedings.
For now, the case stands as the first concrete precedent for how the Alien Terrorist Removal Court operates in practice, from arrest through to final removal. Whether it becomes a recurring feature of immigration enforcement, or remains an isolated episode confined to one especially sensitive case, is likely to depend on how the Justice Department chooses to proceed in the months ahead.
Published in SouthAsianDesk, September 13th, 2026
Follow SouthAsianDesk on X, Instagram and Facebook for insights on business and current affairs from across South Asia.
