WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has ended the first case brought before the federal Alien Terrorist Removal Court without a ruling on whether the little-used tribunal is constitutional. Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan woman and U.S. permanent resident, was deported last month after agreeing to be designated an “alien terrorist” and surrendering her legal status, according to court filings unsealed Sept. 11. The Justice Department announced the deportation on the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, although Haji Zada left the United States roughly two weeks earlier. Under the agreement approved by U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, prosecutors agreed that Haji Zada’s admission could not be used to support a future criminal case against her. The arrangement allowed the government to remove her without litigating the court’s procedures or the underlying allegations in a prolonged proceeding. The Justice Department has alleged that Haji Zada pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group and helped 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 in connection with the alleged plot, according to the department. 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 remained unused for nearly three decades amid constitutional concerns. The court’s rules permit highly restricted proceedings and the use of classified evidence, raising questions about whether defendants receive the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Haji Zada’s lawyers had planned to challenge several of those procedures. At the court’s first public hearing in July, Ericksen indicated that she was prepared to grant at least some defense requests for greater access to information. Instead, the deportation agreement resolved the individual case before those issues could be tested. The court has five judges chosen by Chief Justice John Roberts from across the country. Its structure resembles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which handles government applications to surveil suspected agents of foreign powers, but the terrorism court’s legal boundaries had never been tested in a completed case. The agreement therefore delivers an immediate result for the administration while leaving unresolved whether the court can lawfully operate in future cases — and how much evidence people facing removal would be allowed to see.