Secret evidence raises due-process concerns as national security and constitutional rights collide in unprecedented immigration case
Sadia J. Choudhury:
The United States has created a significant new precedent in immigration and national security law after using the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) for the first time since the special court was established nearly three decades ago.
A 47-year-old Afghan woman, Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident who lived in Fort Worth, Texas, has been deported to Afghanistan after being classified as an “alien terrorist.”
U.S. authorities alleged that Zada assisted her son and son-in-law in connection with an alleged Islamic State-inspired mass-attack plot surrounding the 2024 presidential election. However, she was not separately charged with a terrorism-related criminal offense.
Special Court Activated After Three Decades
Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 as a mechanism for removing noncitizens considered to be involved in terrorism.
The court consists of five federal judges and was created to handle cases in which the government seeks to remove an alien on national-security grounds.
For nearly 30 years, the court remained unused. Zada’s case became the first proceeding brought before the special court.
One of the court’s most significant features is its ability to consider classified evidence that the government says cannot be publicly disclosed because of national-security concerns.
Alleged ISIS-Inspired Plot
According to U.S. authorities, Zada’s son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were involved in a plan to carry out an ISIS-inspired mass attack in the United States around Election Day in 2024.
Both men were subsequently arrested and pleaded guilty in related federal criminal proceedings.
Authorities said the alleged attack was disrupted before it could be carried out.
The government alleged that Zada knew about the activities and helped conceal or support members of her family. However, Zada herself was not criminally charged with terrorism.
Classified Evidence at the Center of Dispute
The most controversial aspect of the case involves the use of classified evidence.
Under the special court’s legal framework, the government can present sensitive information that it argues cannot be disclosed publicly without compromising national security.
That means the individual facing removal—and potentially their attorneys—may not have access to all of the classified material considered by the court.
Zada’s attorneys challenged that process, arguing that withholding evidence from a lawful permanent resident raises serious due-process concerns.
Their central argument was that a person facing permanent removal from the United States should have a meaningful opportunity to understand and challenge the evidence being used against them.
Why the Case Matters to Green Card Holders
The case has significance far beyond the deportation of one Afghan woman.
Zada was a lawful permanent resident, commonly known as a green card holder.
That status makes the case particularly important for other permanent residents because it raises a fundamental question:
How far can the government go in using classified evidence to remove a lawful permanent resident on national-security grounds?
The case also raises questions about how effectively a green card holder can exercise the constitutional right to defend themselves when some of the government’s evidence remains secret.
If the special court is used more frequently in the future, similar issues could affect other permanent residents and noncitizens living in the United States.
Deportation Accepted After Legal Challenge
Rather than continue a prolonged legal battle, Zada ultimately agreed to her removal and waived her right to appeal.
The court approved her removal order on August 20, after which she was deported to Afghanistan and became ineligible to return to the United States.
Her attorneys, however, emphasized that her decision to accept removal should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the constitutional validity of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
Government Calls Case a National Security Success
Attorney General Todd Blanche described the case as an important victory for national security and the rule of law.
The government maintains that individuals who pose a threat to U.S. national security should be subject to every available legal mechanism to prevent them from remaining in the country.
Defense attorneys, however, continue to raise a broader constitutional question:
Can national-security concerns justify withholding critical evidence from a lawful permanent resident facing permanent removal from the United States?
A New Precedent—and Potential Legal Battle
Because the first case ended after Zada agreed to removal, the broader constitutional questions surrounding the special court were not fully tested through a contested appeal.
Nevertheless, the case marks a significant turning point in U.S. immigration enforcement.
After nearly three decades of inactivity, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has now been used for the first time, potentially opening the door to future cases involving noncitizens accused of posing national-security threats.
The central issue going forward will be where the United States draws the line between protecting national security and protecting the constitutional rights of those facing removal.
