The woman facing the first-ever case in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is challenging the constitutionality of the deportation tribunal, setting up a major test of the Trump administration’s decision to activate the court, which had never been used in its 30-year history.
Lawyers for Nazira Haji Zada — a legal permanent resident from Afghanistan who is accused of having ISIS sympathies and of assisting her son in a thwarted terror plot that targeted the 2024 Election — said during an initial hearing Thursday that the court’s procedure’s run afoul of several amendments of the Constitution.
“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional,” said Matthew Farley, a federal public defender who has been appointed to represent Haji Zada.
Their arguments could set up months, if not years, of litigation over the court’s constitutionality, a question that could ultimately travel to the Supreme Court.
Judge Joan Ericksen, the chief judge of the court, who is presiding over the case, denied a request that Haji Zada be immediately released. But she said those constitutional issues will be briefed alongside other legal disputes that have already arisen in the novel case.
