WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has ended the first case brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court without resolving whether the little-used tribunal’s procedures comply with the Constitution. Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan woman and U.S. lawful permanent resident, agreed to be designated an “alien terrorist,” surrendered her permanent-resident status and accepted deportation, according to court records unsealed Sept. 11. She left the United States in August, roughly two weeks before the Justice Department announced the deportation. The agreement was approved by U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, who was selected by Chief Justice John Roberts to preside over the court. Prosecutors agreed that Haji Zada’s admission could not be used to support a future criminal prosecution. The Justice Department alleged that Haji Zada pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and supported a plan by two family members to carry out 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, the department said. An attorney for Haji Zada did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996, but it had never been used before the Trump administration revived it this year. The court has five judges chosen from across the country by the chief justice, a structure similar to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The tribunal’s procedures have drawn scrutiny because they allow the government to rely on classified evidence and operate under rules that could limit a defendant’s ability to challenge the case. Haji Zada’s lawyers had planned to contest several of those procedures, including restrictions on access to evidence. At the court’s first public hearing in July, Ericksen indicated that she was prepared to grant at least some of the defense’s requests for greater access to information. Her rulings would have created an opportunity for the courts to examine whether the tribunal’s secrecy requirements provide adequate due process. That opportunity disappeared with the deportation agreement. The resolution ends the immediate dispute but leaves unanswered whether the court itself — and its legally mandated procedures — can withstand a constitutional challenge. The Justice Department announced the deportation on the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, although Haji Zada had already departed the country. The timing placed the case within a broader administration effort to use terrorism-related immigration powers while avoiding a prolonged courtroom fight over the limits of those powers.