2026-07-30T18:06:05.953Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
这位即将迎来美国“外星恐怖分子驱逐法庭”首例案件的女性正在挑战该驱逐审判庭的合宪性，这将成为对特朗普政府启用该法庭的决定的重大考验——该法庭在其30年历史中从未被使用过。
为纳齐拉·哈吉·扎达辩护的律师表示，该法庭的程序违反了多项宪法修正案。纳齐拉·哈吉·扎达是来自阿富汗的合法永久居民，被指控同情伊斯兰国（ISIS），并协助其子实施了针对2024年大选的未遂恐怖袭击计划。
“整个机制都违反了正当程序，违背宪法，”被任命为哈吉·扎达辩护律师的联邦公设辩护人马修·法利说道。
他们的论点可能会引发长达数月甚至数年的法庭诉讼，围绕该法庭的合宪性问题展开，这一问题最终可能会被提交至最高法院。
负责审理此案的法庭首席法官琼·埃里克森驳回了哈吉·扎达立即获释的请求。但她表示，这些宪法争议将与这起新型案件中已经出现的其他法律纠纷一并进行案情摘要陈述。
美国国会于1996年设立该法庭，旨在让政府在驱逐案件中保护国家机密——在此类案件中，披露针对被控外星恐怖分子的证据可能会危及国家安全。（“外星恐怖分子”是移民法中的一个专有术语。）
然而，在本月早些时候司法部对该女性提起诉讼之前，历届政府都避免使用该法庭，而是在正常的驱逐程序中处理涉密信息。
已公开的针对哈吉·扎达的案件文件，只能让人极为有限地了解到政府为何认为她是恐怖分子，以及为何认为披露相关证据会危及国家安全。该法庭的程序允许政府不仅向公众隐瞒证据，甚至向被控的外星恐怖分子本人隐瞒。
法利称这些程序“极其不足”，并指出提供给哈吉·扎达的案件非保密摘要仅有两段——其中一段仅描述了她的儿子和女婿因恐怖袭击计划所获的前科。
去年夏天，这两名男子——阿卜杜拉·哈吉·扎达和纳西尔·艾哈迈德·陶希德——承认有罪，被控为2024年选举日的预谋恐怖袭击购买步枪和弹药。检察官周四在法庭上指控，作为外星法庭被告的纳齐拉·哈吉·扎达曾帮助“激进化整个家庭”。
埃里克森暗示，她将仔细审查政府向哈吉·扎达和公众隐瞒证据的理由。这位法官表示，笼统的解释不足以服众，对于司法部无法披露的每一条信息，她都希望得到“披露该信息为何会损害国家安全的理由和依据”。
这场时长45分钟的听证会是该法庭首次公开听证会，本月早些时候曾在仅司法部和法官参与的密封程序后举行。此次听证会旨在向被控的外星恐怖分子说明对她的一般性指控以及部分法庭程序。哈吉·扎达于周二在其居住的得克萨斯州被捕。她依靠两名翻译人员协助，主要通过点头确认自己理解了发言内容。
除了律师提出的宪法诉求外，此案中围绕涉密信息共享的争议已经浮现。根据法律，作为合法永久居民的哈吉·扎达有权获得一名特殊律师，该律师可以查看涉密证据并代表她进行质证，但不得向她透露相关信息。不过，在听证会上代表司法部出庭的代理副助理司法部长海登·奥伯恩表示，法律的另一项条款允许政府向该特殊律师也隐瞒某些涉密信息。
埃里克森表示，该问题将以书面形式提交案情摘要，并且她需要司法部为其立场提供“相当有力”的论据。
这位法官承认，由于这是一个“沉睡了30年且从未经过检验”的法庭的首例案件，目前仍处于“搭建基础设施的早期阶段”。听证会期间，法官和律师们都在翻阅相关法规的纸质副本，部分程序还涉及提交法庭文件的后勤工作——因为电子法庭 filing 系统目前正在搭建中。
法官表示，审理过程中可能会出现“不够完善”的时刻，但她承诺将“忠于宪法”推进此案。
Woman in first Alien Terrorist Removal Court case mounts constitutional challenge over secrecy
2026-07-30T18:06:05.953Z / CNN
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.
Congress created the court in 1996 as a way for the government to protect state secrets in deportation cases where the disclosure of its evidence against an alleged alien terrorist risked national security. (Alien terrorist is a term defined in immigration law).
Until the Justice Department’s decision to file the case against the woman earlier this month, however, prior administrations avoided using the court, relying instead on the procedures in normal deportation proceedings for handling classified information.
The filings that have been made public in the case against Haji Zada give a very limited view of why the government thinks she is terrorist and why it believes disclosing that evidence would imperil national security. The court’s procedures allow for the government to withhold that evidence not just from the public, but from the accused alien terrorist herself.
Farley called those procedures “woefully inadequate” and noted that the unclassified summary of the case that has been given to Haji Zada was just two paragraphs — and that one of them just described the prior convictions of her son and son-in-law for the terror plot.
Last summer, the men — Abdullah Haji Zada and Nasir Ahmad Tawhed — pleaded guilty to charges accusing them of purchasing rifles and ammunition for a plotted terrorist attack for Election Day in 2024. Prosecutors alleged in court Thursday that the alien court defendant, Nazira Haji Zada, had helped to “radicalize the family.”
Ericksen signaled she planned to examine closely the government’s justification for keeping evidence hidden from Haji Zada and the public. The judge said a blanket explanation would not suffice, that for each piece of information that the Justice Department can’t disclose, she will want “a reason and rationale for why disclosure of that information would be detrimental to national security.”
The 45-minute hearing — the first public hearing ever before a court, after a sealed proceeding with just the Justice Department and the judge earlier this month — was aimed at explaining to the alleged alien terrorist the general allegations against her and some of the court’s procedures. Haji Zada was arrested Tuesday in Texas, where she lives. She relied on two translators, communicating mostly with head nods affirming she understood what was being said.
Beyond the constitutional claims her lawyers said they were raising, a dispute is already emerging around the sharing of classified information in the case. The law entitles Haji Zada, as a legal permanent resident, a special attorney who can view classified evidence and interrogate it on her behalf — but not share that information with her. However, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hayden O’Byrne, representing the DOJ at the hearing, said that another provision of the law allows for the government to withhold certain classified information from that special attorney as well.
Ericksen said the issue will be briefed in writing and that she would need “pretty strong” arguments from DOJ for its position.
The judge acknowledged that since this was the first case in a court that was “dormant and untested for three decades,” it was still in the “early stages of implementing an infrastructure.” Both the judge and the lawyers shuffled through paper copies of the relevant statute throughout the hearing, and some of the proceedings dealt with logistics of filing court submissions, in the absence of a digital court filing system, which is in the process of being set up.
There might be moments that appear “less elegant,” the judge said, while expressing a commitment to moving forward with the case with “fealty to the constitution.”
发表回复