DOJ Opens First Alien Terror Court Case
The Justice Department has launched the first-ever case before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, seeking to revoke the permanent residency of a 47-year-old Afghan woman from Texas whose son and son-in-law were previously convicted in connection with an ISIS-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day in 2024.
Federal prosecutors filed the unprecedented petition against Nazira Haji Zada of Fort Worth on July 15. Authorities arrested her shortly before a public hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday in Washington, D.C.
According to court records, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the application on June 30. Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen, a federal judge from Minnesota who oversees the tribunal, later determined there was probable cause for the case to proceed to a public hearing.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, but until now had never been used. According to the Federal Judicial Center, no previous administration had ever filed a petition before the specialized court.
The tribunal consists of five federal district judges from different judicial circuits who serve staggered five-year terms after being appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. The Chief Justice is also authorized to appoint judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Under the court’s procedures, judges are permitted to examine classified evidence in private, while the individual facing removal receives only an unclassified summary. Any appeal is heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
That framework is a key element of the government’s legal strategy.
In a Justice Department statement, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg said the court exists because “The court reflects the recognition that the government should not have to choose between allowing a dangerous alien to remain in the United States and disclosing sensitive classified information.”
Haji Zada herself has not been criminally charged.
However, prosecutors allege in an unclassified filing that she pledged loyalty to the Islamic State, helped instill the group’s ideology in her children, and concealed the family’s plan to relocate to ISIS-controlled territory from her husband, who entered the United States under a visa program created for Afghan allies of American forces.
Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, who was arrested at age 17 but prosecuted as an adult, received the maximum 15-year prison sentence in November 2025 and agreed that he would be deported to Afghanistan after completing his sentence.
Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty in June 2025 to providing material support to ISIS and to firearms offenses after purchasing two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent.
Attorneys representing Haji Zada through the federal public defender’s office have indicated they intend to challenge the legality of the tribunal itself.
“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional,” public defender Matthew Farley told the court, according to NPR.
To prevail, the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Haji Zada qualifies as an alien terrorist under the statute, a standard that would permit her removal from the United States.
Legal observers say Thursday’s proceedings are expected to establish the blueprint for how the previously unused tribunal—and its procedures for handling classified national security evidence—will operate in future terrorism-related deportation cases.
{Matzav.com}