Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident of Fort Worth, Texas, became the first person to appear before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court on Thursday. The DOJ-backed proceeding utilizes a dormant 1996 federal statute to seek her deportation over an alleged 2024 Election Day mass shooting plot.
The U.S. Justice Department activated a specialized federal tribunal that had remained dormant for three decades, bringing forward a civil removal case against a Texas mother whose son and son-in-law were previously convicted of plotting an ISIS-inspired attack on Election Day in 2024.
The Inaugural Hearing Before Chief Judge Joan Ericksen
The proceeding unfolded on a Thursday in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C., where Chief Judge Joan Ericksen presided over the historic session. Ericksen, who normally serves as a federal judge in Minnesota, noted at the outset that the respondent was a lawful permanent resident and the very first case to appear before a court that had laid dormant for three decades.
During the 40-minute proceeding, Nazira Haji Zada listened with the assistance of two interpreters. Court officials noted that the infrastructure for the tribunal is still coming into shape, with a newly built website and ongoing work on electronic filing systems. Ericksen told an audience of government workers and reporters that the process might at times seem inelegant.
“The court’s committed to exactness, carefulness, circumspection and fealty to the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Judge Ericksen, Senior U.S. District Judge
Government Allegations and the Use of Classified Evidence
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hayden O’Byrne laid out the government’s stance, telling the court that the FBI developed information pointing to Haji Zada as an Islamic State supporter who collaborated with her son-in-law to radicalize other family members.
“The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day. The Department’s application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America.”
Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General
Prosecutors emphasized that much of the evidence gathered against Haji Zada remains classified. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court framework permits the government to pursue deportation using a lower standard of proof than a standard criminal proceeding, which requires establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Justice Department filed its initial application on July 15, seeking to activate the tribunal established under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
Constitutional Challenges From Federal Public Defenders
Defense counsel immediately pushed back against the proceedings. Matthew Farley, representing Haji Zada alongside Mary Petras from the federal public defender’s office, argued that the entire framework bypasses standard criminal procedures and strips away constitutional protections.
“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional,” said public defender Matthew Farley. “The lack of process and due process provided to the respondent in these proceedings is woefully inadequate.”
Matthew Farley, Public Defender
Farley contended that the action violated rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, describing the civil removal tactic as a run-around of a traditional criminal case. While Ericksen denied the defense motion for immediate release, she indicated she would address constitutional challenges during subsequent hearings.
Prior Family Convictions and Broader Legal Precedent
Federal authorities first focused on the family after arresting Haji Zada’s son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, and her son in Oklahoma. Tawhedi subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiring and providing support to the Islamic State group, and attempting to receive firearms to commit a federal crime of terrorism. Both men received prison sentences and face deportation following their release.
Legal scholars have long debated the viability of the tribunal. With the first hearing concluded, legal analysts are closely watching whether the Trump administration’s novel deployment of the statute will survive higher court scrutiny.
Related reading
