**Title: Afghan Woman Deported in Landmark Case Before US Alien Terrorist Removal Court**
**Date: September 12, 2026**
In a significant legal development, the United States has deported an Afghan woman, Nazira Haji Zada, marking the first case processed by the long-dormant Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC). The court was established three decades ago as part of the U.S. government's efforts to combat international terrorism.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Zada's deportation to Afghanistan, which occurred after she was brought before the ATRC. The 47-year-old lawful permanent resident had been residing in Fort Worth, Texas, and was arrested in 2024. Attorney General Todd Blanche filed the necessary paperwork for her removal on July 15, 2026. Zada waived her rights to contest her detention, leading to her deportation.
The DOJ accused Zada of aiding in the concealment of an ISIL-inspired plot for a mass shooting in Oklahoma on election day in 2024. While she was never formally charged with a crime, her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty to related charges, raising concerns about her involvement.
The ATRC, created by Congress in 1996, is a specialized federal court designed to handle cases involving individuals classified as “alien terrorists.” The court consists of five judges who serve staggered five-year terms. One of its unique features is the ability for the government to present classified information in cases where revealing evidence could jeopardize national security. However, the court is also required to provide an unclassified summary that allows the accused to prepare a defense.
Zada's defense team has expressed strong concerns regarding the legal process she faced. They argue that subjecting lawful permanent residents to this court while withholding evidence against them violates due process rights. They predict that the ATRC will ultimately be deemed unconstitutional once a judge addresses the issue.
In response to Zada's deportation, Attorney General Blanche characterized the action as a victory for national security. He emphasized that individuals who support terrorism should not be permitted to reside in the United States, asserting that the DOJ is committed to utilizing all available resources to safeguard the nation.
Zada's attorneys, however, cautioned against interpreting her consent to removal as an endorsement of the ATRC's legitimacy. They reiterated their position that the court's procedures infringe upon fundamental legal rights, highlighting the broader implications for due process in similar cases.
As of now, it remains uncertain whether the DOJ will pursue additional cases through the ATRC, which has largely remained inactive since its establishment. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how the court is utilized in the future and may prompt further legal challenges regarding its constitutionality.
This landmark case underscores the complexities surrounding national security, immigration law, and the rights of individuals facing deportation under allegations of terrorism-related activities. The implications of Zada's deportation and the functioning of the ATRC are likely to be closely monitored by legal experts and advocacy groups in the coming months.