The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a specialized venue created by Congress in 1996, heard its first-ever case on Thursday as the Trump administration seeks to deport a permanent U.S. resident with alleged ties to an ISIS plot.
Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan national and lawful permanent resident, was arrested earlier this week in Texas. She is accused of aiding her son and son-in-law in planning a mass casualty attack on behalf of ISIS targeting American voters on Election Day. While the plot was reportedly foiled, investigators claim Haji Zada pledged loyalty to ISIS and espoused its ideology within her family.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established to expedite the deportation of individuals deemed national security threats residing in the United States. However, the court has remained unused for the three decades since its inception until now. Most of the legal filings in Haji Zada's case are classified, with only a limited public summary available.
During the initial hearing, Chief Judge Joan Erickson expressed initial skepticism regarding the government's attempt to utilize the court for the first time. However, she ultimately determined that the Department of Justice had presented sufficient evidence to proceed with the case. Justice Department officials lauded the court's inauguration, asserting its utility in handling removal cases that involve classified evidence. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the case demonstrates "the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day."
Haji Zada's public defenders argued that the administration's removal effort infringes upon her due process rights. They contended that the government's use of this court circumvents traditional criminal proceedings and associated due process safeguards, alleging violations of Haji Zada's First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights. Assistant Federal Public Defender Matthew Farley described the government's reliance on a few paragraphs of unclassified filings as contrary to due process, deeming the filings "woefully inadequate."
The government countered that further disclosure of information could aid terrorists in evading detection. Judge Erickson acknowledged that the court's procedures are "untested" and her handling of the case might be "inelegant," but pledged to proceed with "fealty to the Constitution."
No date has yet been set for Haji Zada's removal hearing. The proceedings will navigate uncharted legal territory as both parties debate the extent of defense counsel and public access to classified materials within this novel court. Judge Erickson indicated a willingness to scrutinize government efforts to withhold classified documents, suggesting prosecutors will need to present strong justifications for such actions.