The Justice Department has used a rarely invoked federal terrorism court for the first time, sending an Afghan woman back to Afghanistan after she admitted ties to an ISIS-inspired Election Day plot. The move has quickly turned into a high-stakes example of how the government is trying to use old legal tools against modern terror threats, while critics argue the process raises serious fairness questions.
Nazira Haji Zada, 47, was removed after appearing before the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court and acknowledging she was an “alien terrorist,” according to the DOJ. The specialized court was created by Congress 30 years ago, but until now it had never been used to carry out a removal.
Attorney General Todd Blanche called the outcome a major win for public safety and the rule of law. He said, “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,” and added, “Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States, and this first-ever case before the ATRC shows how the [DOJ] will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country.”
The case centers on an alleged Election Day 2024 mass shooting scheme linked to ISIS sympathizers. According to the DOJ, Zada’s son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were previously convicted for their roles in the plot after authorities said they bought guns and ammunition from an undercover FBI agent.
Prosecutors said the pair later admitted they had purchased AK-47 rifles for an attack carried out on behalf of the Islamic State. Abdullah Haji Zada received a 15-year sentence, while Tawhedi is still waiting to be sentenced.
Zada had been living in Fort Worth as a permanent resident before the removal order was issued on Aug. 20. The government says she is barred from returning to the United States, putting a hard end to her legal status here.
FBI Director Kash Patel praised the deportation as a serious step in the fight against terrorism. He said, “An individual who supported a plot by ISIS-sympathizing family members to commit an attack in America has paid the price for that. She came to our country, betrayed it, and has now lost the right to live here and enjoy our democratic freedoms. This FBI and our Justice Department partners will protect the American people from the threat of terrorism, using all means necessary.”
The alleged plot had been building behind the scenes for months, with reports that the family sold off possessions to help fund the attack. Authorities also said the group bought one-way tickets to Kabul, though the son and Tawhedi remained in the United States after the plan unraveled.
The defense is pushing back hard. Zada’s attorneys said her agreement to removal “should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy,” and argued that keeping evidence from lawful permanent residents and their lawyers is a basic due process problem.
“Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process,” defense lawyers said in a statement Friday. “We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue.”
That fight may matter far beyond this one case. The ATRC sits in a strange corner of immigration and national security law, and its first real use puts a spotlight on how far Congress and the executive branch can go when the target is terror support rather than a conventional criminal charge.
For the administration, the message is blunt: if someone is tied to a terror plot, the government is going to use every available path to get them out. For civil liberties advocates, the concern is just as blunt, because a courtroom that nobody has really tested in 30 years is suddenly at the center of one of the country’s toughest security debates.
