An Afghan woman living in Texas with legal US permanent residency has been deported under a rarely used court, marking the first time the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has been used. Nazira Haji Zada, 47, chose to leave the US rather than continue to argue her case before the court, according to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and her lawyers. The court was created in 1996 but had never heard a case before the proceedings in July.

The DOJ accused Haji Zada of helping conceal an ISIL-inspired plot for a mass shooting in Oklahoma on election day in 2,024. She was never charged with a crime, but her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty to related charges. The court is meant for non-US citizens facing terrorism-related charges when the evidence is confidential and related to national security. Lawyers for Haji Zada argued that the case violated her right to due process under the US Constitution.

In a statement, the DOJ said Haji Zada "conceded that she is an alien terrorist and waived appeal of the removal order, terminating her previous [immigration] status." US Attorney General Todd Blanche called the deportation a "win for national security and the rule of law." The court-appointed lawyers for Haji Zada said they were denied access to the evidence in her case. They stated that her choice to consent to removal should not be seen as an endorsement of the court's legitimacy.

The defence lawyers said 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. They predicted the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue. The DOJ described the deportation as a national security victory, emphasizing that those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created by Congress in 1996 as part of a broader effort to combat international terrorism. It is a specialised US federal court made up of five judges serving staggered five-year terms. The government can submit classified information in cases where disclosure could threaten national security, while requiring an unclassified summary that the court determines is sufficient for the accused to prepare a defence. The government must prove with strong evidence that the person is an "alien terrorist."

It is unclear whether the DOJ would pursue additional cases through the previously unused court. The defence lawyers said their decision to consent to removal should not be seen as an endorsement of the court's legitimacy. They emphasized that the court's procedures violate due process and predicted it will be found unconstitutional. The case has sparked debate over the balance between national security and individual rights, with critics warning of potential abuse of the court's powers.