Breaking: The Justice Department announced Friday that Nazira Haji Zada, 47, an Afghan national and former Fort Worth, Texas, lawful permanent resident, has been removed to Afghanistan after conceding she is an “alien terrorist” — the first case ever brought to judgment before the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC).

According to a Department of Justice press release, the ATRC removal order was signed Aug. 20 by Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen and unsealed Sept. 11 after Zada’s return to Afghanistan. She is now permanently inadmissible to the United States, DOJ said.

Attorney General Todd Blanche certified the removal application on July 15. Zada appeared in open court for the first time on July 30. The government used classified information under the ATRC statute and, DOJ said, also provided Zada and her two federal public defenders with roughly half a terabyte of supporting documents. With counsel, she conceded the “alien terrorist” designation and waived appeal.

DOJ alleges Zada supported an ISIS-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day 2024 involving her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi. Both were arrested Oct. 7, 2024, after buying firearms and ammunition from an undercover FBI employee, according to DOJ. Abdullah — 17 at arrest — pleaded guilty as an adult and was sentenced to 15 years; Tawhedi pleaded guilty June 13, 2025, to terrorism-related offenses and awaits sentencing. Court documents cited by DOJ say the family sold property and bought one-way tickets to Kabul for other relatives ahead of the planned attack.

“This landmark case, resulting in the prompt removal of this alien terrorist to her country of origin, is a win for national security and the rule of law,” Blanche said in the DOJ release. “Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States.”

Congress created the ATRC in 1996 under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Until this summer, no administration had used it. The court lets the government rely on classified evidence that respondents cannot fully review in open proceedings; paid counsel can be provided, and appeals go to the D.C. Circuit. That secrecy-versus-due-process tradeoff is the court’s point — and its controversy: a national-security shortcut after a foiled ISIS-inspired election plot, built on evidence the target never gets to see in the clear.

Defense lawyers had challenged the court’s constitutionality and due-process limits. CNN reported that counsel previously argued ATRC procedures violated due-process protections; it is unclear how fully those issues were litigated before the order. The Independent, citing attorneys for Zada, noted that her consent to removal “should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy.” Court Watch reported federal defenders flagged constitutional objections at the July 30 hearing before Ericksen.

DOJ frames the outcome as proof it will use every statutory tool against noncitizens it labels alien terrorists. Civil-liberties critics see a dormant 1996 tribunal finally activated to deport someone on classified files she cannot fully contest. Both can be true at once: the Election Day plot was real enough for guilty pleas and a 15-year sentence, and a removal court that hides its evidence from the respondent is still a due-process stress test that prior administrations declined to run for three decades.

Sources