In a move unseen for three decades, the U.S. government is employing a specialized federal court, dormant since its inception, to pursue the deportation of an Afghan woman accused of supporting an Islamic State-inspired terrorist plot. Nazira Haji Zada, residing in Fort Worth, Texas, finds herself the first individual targeted for removal through the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) following her arrest earlier this week. An initial hearing for the government’s case is slated for Thursday in Washington, D.C.
Unearthing a Decades-Old Legal Tool
The ATRC, established by Congress in 1996, was designed to handle cases involving noncitizens alleged to be terrorists, particularly when the evidence involves classified information. However, until this month, no case had ever been brought before it. The Justice Department’s recent application to deport Haji Zada marks the court’s debut.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche highlighted the gravity of the charges, stating, “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. The Department’s application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America.”
Allegations of Family Involvement in Terror Plot
Court documents reveal that authorities developed information indicating Haji Zada’s support for the Islamic State. An FBI memo from July 15th details claims that she encouraged her children to pledge loyalty to the terrorist group and supported a plot by family members to conduct an attack within the U.S. inspired by ISIS.
Haji Zada is identified in legal filings as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men previously convicted in Oklahoma. These convictions stemmed from a terror plot that was intended to coincide with a U.S. Election Day in 2024.
Key Figures in the Alleged Plot
- Abdullah Haji Zada: Nazira Haji Zada’s son, who was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison. He had previously agreed to be deported upon his release.
- Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi: Haji Zada’s son-in-law, who formerly served as a security guard at a U.S. military installation in Afghanistan. He pleaded guilty to charges of conspiring and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State.
Prosecutors detailed Tawhedi’s alleged actions in furtherance of the plot, which included ordering AK-47 rifles, liquidating his family’s assets, and purchasing one-way plane tickets for his wife and child to return to Afghanistan. These actions were presented as evidence of his intent to carry out the attack.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court: A Unique Judicial Body
The ATRC operates with a unique structure, comprising five federal judges from various districts across the nation. These judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The court’s proceedings are currently being held at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C.
The court’s specific mandate is to hear government applications for the removal of noncitizens deemed “alien terrorists” under federal immigration law, especially when the supporting evidence is classified. This mechanism allows the government to pursue deportation in sensitive cases without fully disclosing intelligence to the public or the defense, while still providing for judicial review.
Blanche reiterated the purpose behind the court’s creation, stating, “Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court three decades ago to remove from the United States alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place.” The revival of this court signals a significant development in the government’s approach to prosecuting and removing individuals accused of terrorism-related activities, particularly when national security concerns necessitate the use of classified evidence.
Conclusion
The unprecedented use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in Nazira Haji Zada’s case underscores the complexities of national security law and immigration policy. As the court convenes for its inaugural hearing, it sets a precedent for how such cases, involving classified evidence and alleged ties to international terrorist organizations, will be handled moving forward. The proceedings will be closely watched as they unfold in Washington, D.C., marking a new chapter for this long-dormant judicial mechanism.
