WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has deported Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan woman whose case became the first test of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a little-used tribunal created by Congress in 1996. Haji Zada was brought before the court in July after the Justice Department accused her of pledging allegiance to ISIS and helping two relatives plan an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were previously arrested and convicted, according to the department. Rather than fight the case through a potentially lengthy constitutional challenge, Haji Zada agreed to be designated an “alien terrorist” and surrendered her legal permanent resident status. In return, prosecutors agreed that her admission could not be used to support a future criminal prosecution against her. U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen approved the agreement. Chief Justice John Roberts selected Ericksen to preside over the special court, which has five judges drawn from across the country in a structure resembling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Justice Department announced the deportation Sept. 11, the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 2001, although Haji Zada had left the United States roughly two weeks earlier. Court records unsealed that day confirmed that the case was effectively over and that the broader legal dispute had become moot. Haji Zada’s lawyers had planned to challenge several features of the tribunal, including its handling of classified evidence and other confidential procedures. At the court’s first-ever public hearing in July, Ericksen indicated that she was inclined to grant at least some defense requests for greater access to information. The settlement gives the administration a quick removal instead of a precedent-setting courtroom showdown. It also leaves unresolved whether the court’s legally mandated secrecy and procedures satisfy the Constitution’s due-process protections — questions that could resurface if the government brings another case before a tribunal that sat dormant for nearly 30 years.