Afghanistan Peace CampaignThe New York Times
Sept. 11, 2026
An Afghan woman accused of supporting the Islamic State has been sent back to her homeland in the first successful use of an obscure court set up 30 years ago to deport immigrants said to have ties to terrorist groups, according to the Justice Department and court papers unsealed on Friday.
The woman, Nazira Haji Zada, was arrested in Texas in July and brought by national security prosecutors before what is known as the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, which sits in Washington. The prosecutors claimed that Ms. Zada, 47, was connected to a foiled terrorist plot inspired by ISIS to commit a mass shooting on Election Day in 2024 and asked a judge to expel her from the country.
Ms. Zada’s lawyers initially challenged her removal, claiming that the court, which handles deportation proceedings that largely rest on classified information, was unconstitutional. But in a statement issued on Friday, the Justice Department said that Ms. Zada had eventually “conceded that she is an alien terrorist” and had waived her challenge to the government’s request for deportation.
“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,” Attorney General Todd Blanche said in the statement, adding that the case showed “how the department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country.”
Ms. Zada’s lawyers, Matthew Farley and Mary Petras, pushed back in a statement, asserting that Ms. Zada’s consent to removal “should not be seen as an endorsement” of the court.
“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 said. “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.”
The Trump administration has used an array of aggressive tactics to carry out the president’s promise to ramp up deportations — and many of those methods have faced legal challenges. The case against Ms. Zada was a test of a new avenue: a little-known court where much of the evidence is presented in secret and defendants cannot contest how it was collected.
It remains unclear whether the administration would now seek to use the court again after successfully obtaining an order to expel Ms. Zada from Joan N. Ericksen, the chief judge of the court. The case has also left unanswered broader questions about how the court would handle any future proceedings and about its underlying legality.
After Ms. Zada was arrested this summer, prosecutors disclosed in an unclassified summary of her case that last year, both her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, had pleaded guilty to charges connected to the Election Day plot and had admitted that they tried to buy two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition to carry it out.
Moreover, they claimed that Ms. Zada herself “supported” the conspiracy and had “pledged loyalty” to the Islamic State. The prosecutors also said that she had “worked to indoctrinate her children with ISIS ideology” and concealed a plan to relocate her family to ISIS-controlled territory from “her unsuspecting husband.”
Ms. Zada’s lawyers claimed that the government was using the court only because investigators were unable to develop enough evidence to charge her criminally. They noted that a lower standard of proof was required to deport her, adding that, under the court’s rules, the government did not have to reveal all the evidence it had collected.