Alarm as Trump's secretive court claims its first victim: 'It defies logic'
An Afghan woman is the first person ever deported through a long-dormant terrorism court that Trump's Justice Department revived.
Axios reported on Friday that the Justice Department announced the removal of Nazira Haji Zada. She was a lawful permanent resident and the subject of the first-ever case before the federal Alien Terrorist Removal Court. The win could give the administration a path to remove people it links to terrorism while keeping much of its evidence secret, Axios noted.
The government accused Zada of helping her son and son-in-law with a foiled 2024 shooting plot. Chief Judge Joan Ericksen directed her removal in a recently unsealed order dated August 20. The DOJ said it used classified information to establish that Zada is an "alien terrorist." Prosecutors said Zada accepted that designation and waived her right to appeal, according to Axios.
"It'll be interesting to see what they do next," Jess Dawgert, a former DOJ attorney and now a founding partner at a firm focused on federal immigration litigation, told Axios. "I can't imagine that now that they've done this and got this confession fairly quickly that they're not going to use it again."
Attorney General Todd Blanche called the outcome "a win for national security and the rule of law." He described it as a landmark case.
Zada's public defenders pushed back. Mary Petras and Matthew Farley said her decision to consent to removal "should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy."
They also said forcing lawful permanent residents into court without showing them the evidence is "a plain violation of due process."
Immigration attorney Eric Lee told Axios the case set a troubling precedent. He was worried about the court's use amid President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown and doubted that it would be used in a limited way.
"The very fact that they were able to achieve their goal without the constitutional question even being tested is deeply concerning," Lee said. "It defies logic...in this particular moment in American history to believe that somehow the invocation of this court could be a positive step, or that...we should assume it's going to be very very limited."