For 30 Years, No Administration Opened America’s Terrorist Removal Court. The Justice Department Just Did.
Congress built a court for exactly this in 1996: five federal judges, designated by the Chief Justice of the United States, empowered to hear deportation cases built on evidence too classified to show in an ordinary open courtroom. Then it sat empty for three decades.
On July 15, 2026, the Justice Department filed an application with the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court. The court issued its first order the next day. On July 30 it held its first public hearing — roughly forty-five minutes of open argument in a case that had, until then, existed only under seal.
The first respondent is Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan legal permanent resident living in Texas. Prosecutors allege she holds ISIS sympathies, helped radicalize her family, and assisted her son in a thwarted plot. She has not been convicted of anything. Her son has.
- 30 years the Alien Terrorist Removal Court existed without hearing a single case before this one — The Hill
- 5 judges Article III district judges from different circuits, designated by Chief Justice John Roberts, staff the court — Newsweek
- 45 minutes the length of the court's first public hearing, held July 30, 2026 — NPR
- 2 paragraphs the length of the unclassified summary of the government's case given to the defense, one of which described only her son's prior convictions — CNN
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created in 1996 by two statutes passed the same year: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Its authority is codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1535. The structure is unlike anything else in the federal judiciary. Five sitting Article III district judges, drawn from different circuits and designated by the Chief Justice of the United States — a power now exercised by Chief Justice John Roberts — hear removal cases that turn on classified national-security evidence. Appeals run to the D.C. Circuit.
And then, for thirty years, nothing. The judges were designated. The statute stayed on the books through five presidencies. No administration of either party ever filed an application. A tool Congress wrote specifically for terrorism-linked removals went unused for the entire post-9/11 era.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court is not a criminal court. It cannot imprison anyone. The only remedy it can order is removal from the United States — this is a civil immigration proceeding, and the respondent’s liberty interest at stake is the right to remain in the country as a lawful permanent resident, not freedom from a prison term.
That distinction drives everything else about it. Because no criminal sentence is on the table, the court operates under a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And because the evidence is classified, the statute allows the government to present material to the judge that the respondent never sees in full — with the respondent’s interests represented in those sessions by a security-cleared special attorney, and an unclassified summary provided to the defense.
Department of Justice Files First Case in U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court to Deport Afghan Alien Who Supported Her Family's Plans for Election-Day Shooting. 'Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court three decades ago to remove from the United States alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place,' said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
According to the Justice Department’s application, Nazira Haji Zada — a legal permanent resident from Afghanistan, based in Texas — holds sympathies with the Islamic State, helped “radicalize the family,” and assisted her son in a terror plot that law enforcement disrupted before it could be carried out. Those are allegations. She has not been charged with a crime, has not stood trial, and is presumed innocent of everything the government has alleged.
The underlying plot is not in dispute. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi purchased rifles and ammunition in a scheme targeting Election Day 2024. Abdullah Haji Zada, who held a green card, was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. That conviction is final and is the settled factual foundation the government is building on.
#BREAKING: Would-be terrorist Abdullah Haji Zada has been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for his involvement in an Election Day terror plot against the United States on behalf of ISIS.
What the government must now establish is different and narrower: that the mother’s own conduct meets the statutory definition that makes a lawful permanent resident removable as an alien terrorist. A son’s conviction is not, by itself, a case against his mother. The application alleges more than proximity — but the court, not the filing, decides whether the evidence carries the case.
The July 30 hearing was the first proceeding in the court’s history that the public could observe. It was not the first proceeding, period: an earlier session had already been held under seal, attended only by the Justice Department and the judge. Roughly forty-five minutes of adversarial argument followed.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, a senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, presided. Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hayden O’Byrne (Trump DOJ) argued for the Justice Department. Matthew Farley, a federal public defender, represents Haji Zada.
Ericksen rejected the defense motion to dismiss and declined to order Haji Zada released, while explicitly leaving the door open for the defense to raise its arguments again as the record develops. The constitutional questions were not resolved from the bench; they proceed through briefing.
“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional.”
Matthew Farley · Federal Public Defender · July 30, 2026
Farley called the court’s procedures “woefully inadequate.” His strongest point is a concrete one, and it deserves to be stated at full strength: the unclassified summary handed to the defense ran two paragraphs, and one of those two described only her son’s prior convictions. Notice is the load-bearing beam of due process. A respondent who cannot see the allegation cannot marshal an alibi, cannot identify a mistaken translation, cannot name the witness with a motive to lie. That is not a technicality; it is the oldest objection in Anglo-American law.
The statute anticipated the objection and answered it with structure rather than disclosure: an Article III judge reviews the classified material directly, a security-cleared special attorney represents the respondent’s interests in closed sessions, and the D.C. Circuit sits above the whole apparatus. Whether that structure satisfies the Fifth Amendment is precisely the question now being briefed — and it is being briefed in a real courtroom, with a real adversary, on a public record.
The most telling moment of the hearing was not either lawyer’s argument. It was the judge’s warning to the government: Ericksen said she would require “pretty strong” arguments from the Justice Department to justify withholding classified information from the respondent’s special attorney. The bench is not treating the classified label as a magic word. It is demanding a showing, item by item.
That is what a dormant statute looks like when it is finally exercised: the government files, the defense fights, an Article III judge rules against the defense on the threshold motion and warns the government about secrecy in the same sitting, and an appellate path stays open above all of it. The case will be won or lost on the record. For thirty years there was no record at all.
Congress wrote this court into law in 1996 and no administration used it for thirty years. The Justice Department filed on July 15, the court held open argument on July 30, and a federal judge both denied the defense motion and told prosecutors they would need “pretty strong” grounds to keep evidence from the respondent’s cleared attorney. Nothing has been proven against Nazira Haji Zada. The machinery, at last, is running.
