Afghan woman fights deportation in first terrorist removal court case

The Justice Department’s first attempt to use a little-known terrorism removal court is facing an immediate constitutional challenge from an Afghan woman’s lawyer, who told a federal judge Thursday that the government is trying to deport his client through an unfair and secretive process.

Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident from Fort Worth, Texas, appeared in Washington for the first hearing ever held by the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, which Congress created in 1996 but had never used. The Justice Department alleges Haji Zada is an “alien terrorist” who supported the Islamic State group and helped radicalize family members involved in an alleged plot targeting the 2024 election.

Haji Zada has no criminal history and has not been charged with a terrorism crime, CBS News reported. She appeared in court wearing a cream-colored head covering and used an interpreter to follow the proceedings.

Her court-appointed lawyer, federal public defender Matthew Farley, vowed to fight the deportation effort and accused the Justice Department of violating her due process rights. “This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,” Farley told U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.

Farley called the case “a runaround to bringing a criminal case,” saying the government is relying on a lower evidentiary standard than would apply in a criminal prosecution. He asked Ericksen to immediately release Haji Zada from custody. The judge denied that request, though the issue is expected to be reviewed at a later detention hearing.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created to deport noncitizens, including legal permanent residents, in cases where classified national security information could not be made public through the traditional legal process. People targeted in the proceedings are not permitted to review classified evidence against them and cannot legally challenge how the government collected that evidence, unlike defendants in criminal cases. Green card holders such as Haji Zada receive some additional protections, including the right to government-appointed counsel with a security clearance.

The Justice Department’s case centers in part on Haji Zada’s son and son-in-law. Last year, Abdullah Haji Zada and Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi pleaded guilty in federal court in Oklahoma after purchasing two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent as part of an alleged plot tied to the 2024 election and carried out in support of the Islamic State. Haji Zada’s son was 17 when arrested in 2024, was charged as an adult and pleaded guilty to gun crimes at 18. Tawhedi pleaded guilty to terrorism and gun offenses. NPR reported both men were sentenced to prison and will be deported after serving their sentences.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the case in a statement quoted by NPR. “The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day,” Blanche said. “The Department’s application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America.”

During Thursday’s hearing, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hayden O’Byrne initially offered broad claims that classified information showed Haji Zada was an “alien terrorist.” Pressed by Ericksen for more detail, he said FBI evidence showed she was a “supporter of Isis and has pledged loyalty to Isis,” and alleged she covertly radicalized the family without her “unsuspecting husband” knowing.

Farley said the unclassified summary given to Haji Zada contained little more than two paragraphs, some of it already public from her son’s Oklahoma case. He also said the government appeared likely to block even defense lawyers from seeing classified evidence, which he said would be “contrary to the statute.” Ericksen said she would proceed with the “working presumption that defense counsel is going to be able to review the classified information” and would require the government to explain why any information could not be disclosed.

The hearing also exposed the court’s unusual status. Ericksen noted that it had been “dormant and untested for three decades” and said it lacks an electronic filing system. “I believe it will be on Pacer,” she said. “And I don’t believe we will be able to charge for it.”