Schumer Loses! Court Sides With Trump In Historic Move

The Justice Department has taken an unprecedented step in a terrorism-related immigration case, using a federal court that sat virtually untouched for three decades to remove an Afghan woman accused of supporting her family’s plans for an ISIS-inspired mass shooting around Election Day 2024.

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, a lawful permanent resident who had been living in Fort Worth, Texas, has been removed to Afghanistan after proceedings before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, according to the Justice Department.

It marks the first case ever brought before the specialized court since Congress created it in 1996.

Zada was not criminally charged in connection with the alleged Election Day attack.

Instead, federal authorities pursued her removal through the rarely used national-security court, alleging that she supported family members who were preparing to carry out an ISIS-inspired mass shooting in the United States.

The Justice Department filed its application for her removal on July 15. Zada was subsequently taken into custody and appeared before Alien Terrorist Removal Court Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen in Washington, D.C.

The case ultimately ended without a prolonged court battle.

With the assistance of her attorneys, Zada conceded for purposes of the removal proceeding that she qualified as an “alien terrorist” and waived her right to appeal. The court issued its removal order on Aug. 20, and the order was unsealed after she was returned to Afghanistan.

The extraordinary proceeding brought a court created during the terrorism debates of the 1990s into action for the first time.

Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 to handle removal proceedings involving noncitizens accused of terrorism when national-security concerns may prevent the government from publicly revealing classified intelligence.

The tribunal is staffed by federal district judges appointed to it by the chief justice of the United States. Under the governing statute, the government may present classified information using special procedures designed to prevent sensitive intelligence from being publicly disclosed.

That unusual process has also generated a major legal dispute over due process.

Zada’s attorneys challenged the constitutionality and fairness of the system, arguing that restrictions surrounding classified evidence could prevent a person facing removal from fully confronting the government’s case.

Although Zada ultimately agreed to removal, her attorneys maintained their objections to the process.

The allegations against Zada were tied to a far more serious criminal case involving her own family.

Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were arrested on Oct. 7, 2024, after obtaining firearms and ammunition from an undercover FBI employee as part of what federal authorities said was preparation for an Election Day terrorist attack.

Authorities alleged that the men intended to stage a mass-casualty shooting on or around Nov. 5, 2024.

The attack never happened.

Instead, federal agents moved in before the alleged plan could be carried out.

Tawhedi later pleaded guilty to terrorism-related offenses involving conspiring and attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS, as well as firearms offenses connected to a federal crime of terrorism.

Abdullah was just 17 when he was arrested, but he entered his guilty plea as an adult.

He was ultimately sentenced to 15 years in federal prison and agreed that he would be removed to Afghanistan after completing his sentence. He also waived most avenues for challenging that eventual removal.

Federal authorities alleged that Zada played a supporting role as her family prepared for what prosecutors characterized as the planned attack.

According to the government’s case, members of the family sold possessions in 2024 as the alleged plot developed. Authorities also pointed to preparations for family members to leave the United States before Election Day.

Prosecutors interpreted those actions, along with classified and other evidence presented in the removal proceeding, as evidence that Zada knew about and supported the planned attack.

Her defense attorneys disputed the government’s characterization of her conduct.

That distinction is significant: Zada was never convicted—or even criminally charged—for participating in the alleged terrorist conspiracy.

The government instead pursued an immigration removal proceeding, where the evidentiary standard and procedures differ substantially from those in a criminal prosecution. The Justice Department says the ATRC can order removal when the government establishes the statutory requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Ultimately, there would be no full trial testing the government’s allegations.

Zada agreed to removal, conceded her status as an “alien terrorist” for purposes of the proceeding and waived further appeal. She has now been returned to Afghanistan and, according to the Justice Department, is permanently inadmissible to the United States.

Justice Department officials immediately portrayed the outcome as a significant development in the government’s counterterrorism arsenal.

Attorney General Todd Blanche called it a “landmark case” and “a win for national security and the rule of law.”

The larger significance may extend beyond Zada herself.

For 30 years, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court existed largely on paper.

Now it has been used.

And with the Justice Department publicly signaling that it views the court as another available tool in terrorism-related immigration cases, Zada’s removal could become the first test of a legal mechanism that had never before been put into practice.