The Justice Department has initiated deportation proceedings against Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan lawful permanent resident living in Fort Worth, Texas, in a case that marks the first activation of a federal court established three decades ago to handle terrorism-related removals. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, created by Congress in 1996 but never previously used, held its initial public hearing Thursday in Washington, spotlighting complex questions surrounding due process and classified evidence in immigration enforcement.

Nazira Haji Zada was arrested on Tuesday by FBI agents as part of efforts to remove individuals the government designates as “alien terrorists.” Although she faces no formal criminal charges, prosecutors allege she supported an Islamic State-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting during the U.S. 2024 election. According to government filings, Haji Zada is the mother of Abdullah Haji Zada and mother-in-law of Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, both convicted for their roles in the failed attack. Abdullah pleaded guilty to terrorism offenses and is serving a 15-year sentence, with plans to be deported after release. Tawhedi also pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to ISIS and remains awaiting sentencing.

The Justice Department asserts that Nazira Haji Zada played an active role in radicalizing the family and facilitating the attack plan. Prosecutors say she pledged loyalty to ISIS and collaborated in concealing extremist activities from her husband, who formerly worked at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. They also claim she intended to relocate her family to ISIS-controlled territory while the men stayed in the United States to execute the plot. The government contends that the specialized court serves as an appropriate venue due to its ability to handle sensitive, often classified evidence without full public disclosure, and that conventional removal procedures would inadequately address the national security risks.

Defense attorney Matthew Farley challenged the government’s case, arguing that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court’s untested procedures infringe on Haji Zada’s constitutional rights, including due process protections under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Farley characterized the deportation effort as circumventing a criminal trial and questioned the lack of transparency, particularly regarding access to the classified materials underpinning the government’s claims. Although Judge Joan Ericksen denied a motion for Haji Zada’s immediate release, she acknowledged the need for the defense team to review classified evidence under close supervision and indicated she would apply strict procedures modeled after the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Judge Ericksen, a federal district judge from Minnesota and one of five judges appointed by the U.S. Chief Justice to this specialized court, described the proceeding as an initial test of the court’s capacity and framework, noting it is still developing its operational infrastructure. The court operates under a civil standard, requiring a preponderance of evidence to authorize deportation, which is a lower threshold than in criminal cases. Decisions by the court can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The Trump administration’s use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court dovetails with broader efforts to expedite deportations of individuals suspected of terrorist ties, though the approach has drawn criticism from defense lawyers and civil rights advocates who warn of potential due process violations. The case is expected to unfold in the coming months with further hearings to address detention status, evidentiary issues, and the ultimate determination on removal.