Justice Department’s First Use of Alien Terrorist Removal Court

The U.S. Department of Justice has made history by bringing a case before a special court designed decades ago to deport a legal U.S. resident to Afghanistan. This unprecedented action involves Nazira Haji Zada, who admitted to being an ‘alien terrorist.’

Prosecutors allege that Nazira Haji Zada, originally from Afghanistan, supported her son and son-in-law in planning a mass shooting inspired by the Islamic State. This plot targeted Election Day in 2024, as documented in court papers. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, received a 15-year prison sentence, and both men will face deportation after completing their sentences.

Instead of entering the criminal justice system, Nazira Haji Zada faced civil proceedings in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a rarely used court allowing for evidence deemed too sensitive for standard courts. This court demands a lower standard of proof for deportation and was established in 1996 to handle national security-related evidence discreetly.

Unsealed filings dated August 20 show Haji Zada waived her rights to contest detention and accepted deportation. Senior U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen ordered her removal the same day. Her admission won’t be used in criminal trials, with documents becoming public last Friday.

Haji Zada’s attorneys, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, argue the court’s constitutionality in filings, citing their lack of access to evidence. They declare their client’s consent to deportation does not validate the court’s authenticity. They assert, ‘Refusing to share evidence with lawful permanent residents and their attorneys violates due process.’

A statement from her lawyers suggests confidence that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be challenged as unconstitutional.

In 2018, Haji Zada became a lawful permanent resident in the U.S., following her husband’s employment at Bagram Air Base, a major U.S. base in Afghanistan. Authorities allege she was the family ‘matriarch,’ involved in radicalizing family members, pledging ISIS loyalty, and indoctrinating children and son-in-law with extremist beliefs.

It’s alleged the family raised funds for the attack by selling various personal items and prepared to relocate to an ISIS-controlled area, unbeknownst to her husband. Haji Zada’s son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, admitted to planning an attack with AK-47 rifles, ammunition, and magazines. He negotiated with an ISIS agent over necessary weaponry and pled guilty to related terrorism charges.

Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the court’s application, emphasizing its significance in protecting national security. He described the case as a victory for national security and law enforcement practices.