Alien Terrorist Removal Court Holds First Hearing 30 Years

A little-known federal court created three decades ago but never used held its first-ever hearing on Thursday, marking a significant and controversial expansion of counterterrorism powers. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), established by Congress in 1996, convened in Washington, D.C., to hear the case of a Texas woman accused of supporting the Islamic State, as NPR reported.

A Court Awakened After Three Decades

The ATRC was created by Section 401 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in response to the Oklahoma City bombing. It consists of five Article III judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States for staggered five-year terms. Yet for 30 years, no Attorney General — under either Democratic or Republican administrations — ever filed a single application with the court, according to the Federal Judicial Center. Legal scholars long speculated the court remained dormant due to serious due process concerns over its authorization of secret evidence.

That changed on July 15, 2026, when Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the Department of Justice’s first-ever application to the ATRC, seeking the removal of Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident from Fort Worth, Texas.

The Case: An ISIS-Linked Family Plot

According to prosecutors, Zada is the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family whose members plotted a mass-casualty attack on Election Day 2024. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada (then 17), and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi (28), were arrested in October 2024 after purchasing two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI employee. They intended to carry out a shooting at voting sites on behalf of ISIS.

Abdullah Haji Zada was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in November 2025, the statutory maximum, and stipulated to removal to Afghanistan after his incarceration. Tawhedi pleaded guilty in June 2025 and awaits sentencing. Both are Afghan nationals who were lawful permanent residents.

The Justice Department alleges that Zada supported and helped radicalize her family members. Much of the evidence against her remains classified, but prosecutors said during the hearing that the FBI developed information showing she was an ISIS supporter who worked with her son-in-law to radicalize others.

“In this case, the United States is alleging that Ms. Haji Zada is an alien terrorist…and that the U.S. has classified evidence to prove that,” prosecutor Hayden O’Byrne told the court.

A Unique and Controversial Legal Mechanism

The ATRC operates under rules that differ markedly from criminal proceedings. The government needs only a “preponderance of evidence” — a lower standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement in criminal cases — to secure a removal order. Crucially, the court permits the use of classified evidence that may not be fully shared with the respondent or their counsel.

Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen, a Senior U.S. District Judge from Minnesota who presided over the 40-minute hearing, acknowledged the court’s infrastructure is “still coming into focus.” She affirmed the court’s commitment to “exactness, carefulness, circumspection and fealty to the Constitution and the rule of law.”

Zada, who was arrested the week of July 27, listened to the proceedings through interpreters and said little during the hearing. Her court-appointed public defenders signaled an aggressive constitutional challenge ahead.

“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional,” said public defender Matthew Farley. “The lack of process and due process provided to the respondent in these proceedings is woefully inadequate.”

Broader Legal and Political Implications

The activation of the ATRC represents a significant expansion of counterterrorism tools under the Trump administration, which has pursued aggressive immigration enforcement measures including revoking citizenships, deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, and expanding expedited removal procedures.

The case raises fundamental constitutional questions that will likely be tested through appeal to the D.C. Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court: Can classified evidence be used in civil removal proceedings without violating Fifth Amendment due process rights? Is a preponderance of evidence standard sufficient when the consequence is permanent removal from the United States? And does the ATRC’s secret evidence procedure render the entire statutory scheme unconstitutional?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the court’s activation, stating: “The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day. The Department’s application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America.”

What to Watch For

The case, docketed as 2026-TRC-1, is at its earliest stage. Future hearings will address the classified evidence procedures, and a removal order — if issued — would almost certainly face appellate review. Legal observers are watching closely to see whether this marks the beginning of broader ATRC usage or remains a one-off case, and how the courts balance national security imperatives against constitutional due process protections.

Judge Ericksen ordered Zada to remain in custody as proceedings continue.