A terrorism investigation that began with an alleged plan to attack Americans on Election Day in 2024 has now produced a second, potentially far-reaching consequence: the first case ever heard by a little-used federal court created specifically to remove alleged terrorists from the United States.
Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national and lawful permanent resident who had been living in Fort Worth, Texas, has been deportedtoAfghanistanafter becoming the first person brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a federal court created by Congress in 1996 but never previously used.
The Oklahoma connection runs directly through Haji Zada's family. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were arrested Oct. 7, 2024, after federal investigators said the men obtained firearms and ammunition fromanundercover FBI employee for an ISISinspired attack planned for Election Day. Abdullah Haji Zada eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. Tawhedi also pleaded guilty to terrorism-related offenses involving ISIS and firearms and is awaiting sentencing.
Nazira Haji Zada was not prosecuted as a criminal defendant in that Oklahoma case. Instead, the federal government took a different legal route.
The Justice Department accused her of supporting the plans of her family members and sought her removal through the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. Prosecutors relied on classified nationalsecurity information in making their case.
That is where the case becomes larger than one deportation. Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 as a specialized mechanismforremoving noncitizens who are determined to be terrorists when national-security concerns make ordinary immigration proceedings inadequate.
The court is composed of five federal district judges appointed to serve by the chief justice of the United States. It handles civil removal proceedings rather than criminal prosecutions. The government does not have to meet the criminal standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Instead, the statute calls for proof by a preponderance of the evidence, essentially showing that it is more likely than not that the individual meets the statutory definition of an alien terrorist. That lower evidentiary burden is one reason the court exists.
The government can pursue removal without having to obtain a criminal conviction, while the court has procedures designed to protect classified information whose public disclosure could threaten national security. For nearly three decades, however, no administration had used it.
Haji Zada's case changed that. The most significant legal issue to emerge from the case was not whether the governmentcoulddeporther.
It was how much of the government's evidence she and her attorneys were entitled to see. Much of the government's evidence was classified.
Haji Zada's attorneys argued that the proceeding raised fundamental due process concerns because the government was relying on information that could not simply be made public or, according to the defense, fully disclosed to the defense team. Her lawyers argued that putting a lawful permanent resident before a court while withholding evidence being usedagainstherdeprivedher of a meaningful opportunity to defend herself.
The issue is significant because classified evidence is normally protected in national-security cases, but the Constitution still guarantees due process. The court therefore faced a difficult balance: protecting intelligence that the government says could endanger national security whilegivingthepersonfacing removal enough information and legal assistance to challenge the government's case.
During the initial proceedings, Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen indicated that defense attorneys would have a role in reviewing classified information and discussed using procedures modeled on the Classified Information Procedures Act, commonly known as CIPA, which governs the handling of classified information in federal criminal cases.
Thegovernmentultimately providedHajiZadaandher two federal public defenders approximatelyhalfaterabyte of documents supporting its case, while also relying on classified information. The case could have become a landmark constitutional test. It did not.
Haji Zada ultimately conceded that she qualified as an alien terrorist, agreed to her removalandwaivedherright to appeal. The court entered its removal order Aug. 20, and she was subsequently removed to Afghanistan.
That decision effectively ended the first case before the court before an appellate court could resolve the broader constitutional questions. Her attorneys made clear that agreeing to removal should not be interpreted as accepting the legitimacy of the court or its procedures.
They specifically objected to the government's handling of evidence and raised dueprocess concerns. That leaves a significant legal question hanging over the court's future. Can the government constitutionally remove a lawful permanent resident through a special terrorism court when some of the evidence supporting the government's case is classified and not fully available to the
person facing removal?
Haji Zada's case does not answer that question. The case nevertheless establishes something important: the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is no longer merely a statute sitting on the books.
The government has now demonstrated that it can activate the court, present classified information, provide appointed counsel, obtain a judicial removal order and remove an individual from the United States under the court's authority. That gives future prosecutors and national-security officials a framework to follow.
However, it does not establish binding precedent on the constitutional questions because there was no appellate decision addressing them in Haji Zada's case. The future significance of the case could therefore depend heavily on what happens when, or if, another person refuses to concede removal and challenges the process all the way through the federal appellate courts.
A future defendant could challenge the government's use of classified evidence, the amount of information provided to the defense, the court's evidentiary standard or the constitutionality of the overall removal procedure.
Such a case could force federal appeals courts to determine where the government's national-security authority ends, and constitutional dueprocess protections begin. For Oklahoma, those questions are tied directly to the 2024 Election Day investigation.
What began as a federal investigation into an alleged ISIS-inspired attack has now helped activate a federal court that had never before been used. Haji Zada's case took a different path, one designed not to determine criminal guilt, but to determine whether she could remain in the United States.
The first case is now closed, and the larger legal experiment has just begun. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court now has its first case file, its first removal order and its first deportation. What it does not yet have is a definitive appellate ruling establishing how far its extraordinary powers can reach. That question may belong to the next case.