In a first-of-its-kind move, the Justice Department used a long-dormant court to deport a lawful U.S. resident who conceded she was an “alien terrorist.”
Story Snapshot
- The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was used for the first time since Congress created it in 1996.
- Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national and green card holder, was removed after conceding her status.
- Officials said she supported an Islamic State-inspired plot tied to her family; her son separately pleaded guilty in a related gun case.
- Her lawyers said her consent did not endorse the court’s process, which allows secret evidence.
What The Government Did And Why It Matters
The Department of Justice activated the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a special court Congress set up in 1996 but never used until this year. The department said the court issued an order removing Nazira Haji Zada after she conceded she is an “alien terrorist.” Officials framed the case as proof the court can handle classified evidence while protecting national security. The department called it the first-ever case in this court and a landmark action.
Officials said Zada supported an Islamic State-inspired plot connected to her family. Separate from this court process, her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, pleaded guilty to federal firearms charges in a plan tied to terrorism. These points formed part of the government’s public case for removal. The government emphasized that the removal proceeding is civil, not criminal, and uses a lower standard of proof than a trial. That structure is by design in the court’s rules.
How The Alien Terrorist Removal Court Works
Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to handle cases where classified evidence is central. The court allows the judge to review sensitive material in private and to share only summaries if full disclosure could harm national security. That design tries to balance fairness with secrecy. Critics argue the model risks thin due process. Supporters say it prevents damaging disclosures and speeds removals.
The court held its first hearing in thirty years in late July, and the removal itself followed in September. In Zada’s case the Justice Department said the court found the government met its burden under the law, and that Zada conceded she qualifies as an “alien terrorist,” which cleared the path to removal. Parts of the evidence remained classified throughout, which is normal for this venue and is precisely what separates it from a standard immigration court.
The Debate: Security, Secrecy, And Trust In Institutions
Zada’s attorneys said her decision to consent to removal should not be read as support for the court’s process. They argued her consent was a practical choice, not an agreement with the claims or the secrecy rules. Civil liberties groups have long warned that secret evidence narrows a person’s chance to fight back. The Justice Department counters that disclosure could expose sources and methods, and that national security has to come first in a case like this one.
For many readers, two things are true at once. People want real protection from terror threats. People also want rules that do not let the government act in the dark without limits. This case taps a worry shared across right and left: that powerful officials can bend a special system to their own ends once it exists. The court’s first use sets the precedent. Future uses will show whether a tool built for genuine threats stays pointed at them.
DOJ: First-ever case in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court ends in removal.
The Justice Department says it completed the first deportation in the history of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan living in Texas, conceded she met the statutory… pic.twitter.com/nwi70IIbYK
— The Cross Wire Daily (@dailycrosswire) September 12, 2026
What To Watch Next
Watch whether the Justice Department brings a second case, and how quickly. A venue that sat unused for thirty years and then opened once can stay a rarity or become routine, and the difference will show up in the filing pace over the next year. Watch also for any published opinion explaining the legal reasoning, since that document would tell lawyers and the public far more about the court’s limits than a press release can.
Sources:
cnn.com, townhall.com, politico.com, abcnews.com
