A woman at the centre of the first case ever brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has challenged the constitutionality of the tribunal, setting the stage for a major legal battle over the Trump administration’s decision to activate a court that had remained unused for three decades.
Nazira Haji Zada, a legal permanent resident from Afghanistan, is accused of sympathising with ISIS and helping her son in an alleged terrorist plot targeting the 2024 US election.
During an initial hearing on Thursday, her legal team argued that the court’s procedures violate several constitutional protections, including the right to due process.
“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional,” said Matthew Farley, the federal public defender representing Haji Zada.
The constitutional challenge is expected to trigger lengthy litigation that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
Presiding judge Joan Ericksen declined a request to immediately release Haji Zada but said the constitutional issues would be considered alongside other legal disputes that have emerged in the case.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created by Congress in 1996 to handle deportation cases involving alleged foreign terrorists where disclosing sensitive government evidence could threaten national security.
Despite its creation nearly 30 years ago, the court had never been used until the US Department of Justice filed proceedings against Haji Zada earlier this month. Previous administrations instead relied on conventional immigration courts to manage cases involving classified information.
Publicly available court documents reveal little about the government’s allegations, with prosecutors maintaining that much of the evidence cannot be disclosed because of national security concerns.
Under the court’s procedures, certain classified evidence may be withheld not only from the public but also from the accused.
Farley criticised the process, describing it as “woefully inadequate,” and noted that the unclassified summary provided to his client consisted of only two paragraphs, one of which simply outlined the previous convictions of her son and son-in-law.
Last year, Haji Zada’s son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhed, pleaded guilty to charges linked to an alleged plot to carry out a terrorist attack on Election Day in 2024.
During Thursday’s hearing, prosecutors alleged that Nazira Haji Zada helped “radicalize the family.”
Judge Ericksen indicated that the government would be required to justify every request to withhold information, saying broad national security claims would not be sufficient.
“For each piece of information that the Justice Department can’t disclose, she will want ‘a reason and rationale for why disclosure of that information would be detrimental to national security.’”
The hearing, which lasted about 45 minutes, was the court’s first public session following an earlier closed-door proceeding involving only the judge and Justice Department officials.
Haji Zada, who was arrested in Texas on Tuesday, attended the hearing with the assistance of two interpreters and responded mainly by nodding to indicate she understood the proceedings.
Another legal dispute also emerged over whether classified evidence could be withheld from a special attorney appointed to review sensitive materials on Haji Zada’s behalf.
Judge Ericksen said she expected the Justice Department to provide “pretty strong” arguments to support that position.
Acknowledging the unprecedented nature of the proceedings, Ericksen noted that the court had remained “dormant and untested for three decades” and was still in the early stages of establishing its operating procedures.
She added that while some aspects of the process might appear “less elegant,” the court would proceed with “fealty to the constitution.”
