After three decades on the statute books without a single case, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) has been activated for the first time, thrusting an obscure anti-terrorism mechanism into the center of U.S. deportation policy. The Trump administration is seeking the removal of an Afghan woman, Nazira Haji Zada, accused of supporting an Islamic State-inspired plot, marking what officials describe as a long-overdue use of a tool Congress created in 1996.
“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,”
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement.
This move marks the adoption of a tougher stance on national security deportation cases and is an attempt at implementing a legal process that has been widely criticized for its secrecy and lack of proper due process procedures. The case has been filed under seal during mid-July, but became publicly available on July 29, 2026, resulting in the scheduling of the first status hearing at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C. Although the government’s petition is extensively redacted, available court documents and law enforcement descriptions suggest that it is a network of a family supporting ISIS, where Nazira plays the role of an important facilitator.
As officials from ICE believe, conventional immigration removal process would not be sufficient in this case as Nazira, a lawful permanent resident who has never been convicted of any crime, cannot be deported according to regular criteria.
“The allegations in this case demonstrate the matriarch of a family sympathetic to ISIS helping plan an attack against Americans on Election Day,”
Blanche said.
The accused and the alleged plot
Nazira Haji Zada, a woman from Fort Worth, Texas, is the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghans who have been charged with conspiring in terror activities in Oklahoma on Election Day 2024. Nazira’s son Abdullah Haji Zada pled guilty in November 2025 and was sentenced to serve 15 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to ISIS; court documents show that Abdullah agreed to be deported from the United States once released from prison. Meanwhile, her son-in-law Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, a former security guard at a U.S. military facility in Afghanistan, pled guilty to the same crime and, according to the prosecution, did take specific actions to execute plans of an attack, such as ordering AK-47s and purchasing one-way tickets to Afghanistan for himself and his family. In addition, according to the FBI memorandum dated July 15, 2026, Nazira’s involvement went beyond simple connections because investigators “developed information” showing that she is a supporter of ISIS and got her children to swear allegiance to the terrorist organization.
The memo alleges she “supported” a plot by relatives to carry out an ISIS-inspired attack in the U.S. DOJ filings describe her as having “endeavored to indoctrinate her children with ISIS beliefs and secure their allegiance to ISIS.” While she has no criminal history and remains in the country legally on a green card, the government contends that her conduct and ideological alignment render her a national security threat who cannot be removed through conventional immigration channels.
Why the ATRC, and why now?
The ATRC was created under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 to handle deportation cases involving noncitizens alleged to be “alien terrorists” when the government’s evidence includes classified information that cannot be disclosed in open court.
The court consists of five district judges from various circuits nominated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and it is meant to facilitate in camera and ex parte hearings, whereby the evidence presented can be reviewed in private by the judge, and the respondent will get only generalized information. The court was dormant for 30 years without hearing any petition, and was thus considered to be an artifact of the statute due to the fact that various administrations chose to resort to ordinary deportation proceedings or even prosecute criminally, in case of terrorism, instead of using this court. The use of the ATRC by the Trump administration can be said to have been both symbolic and practical since it enabled the government to present classified evidence without revealing it publicly.
“This Department of Justice will use every tool available to bring alien terrorists to justice and remove them from the United States, including this court established by Congress in 1996,”
a DOJ spokesperson said. The timing also follows broader legal battles over deportation authorities and comes after a federal judge previously highlighted the ATRC as a statutory alternative in terror-related removals.
Judicial scrutiny and procedural hurdles
The ATRC’s first foray has not been without friction. Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen, presiding over the initial proceedings, initially requested more information from the Justice Department after a one-page application lacked specifics on identity, conduct, and the precise legal sections invoked. In an order issued in mid-July, the judge directed the government to file a supplemental submission under seal addressing the issues raised during the hearing, with the respondent given until July 21 to respond, also under seal.
“The court’s chief judge, Joan Ericksen, found probable cause supported the Justice Department’s application to remove Haji Zada, a decision that triggers an ‘initial status hearing’ slated for Thursday morning at the federal district courthouse in Washington, D.C.”
The court must decide whether further hearing is required or if it can make a ruling on the current record. It is interesting how the court pushes back on the design of the ATRC from the very beginning: this procedure allows the government to use classified information but forces the court to guarantee sufficient facts and legality for the decision to remove the individual.
According to the ATRC rules, all the proceedings must be “expeditious” – the appeal to the D.C. Circuit occurs in 20 days, making the process quicker than a standard deportation process. Yet, the secrecy and lack of transparency of the court had always been an issue of the due process concern. Former Senator Joe Biden called it “as un-American as it gets” in 1996, and civil liberties organizations agree that the court may be used to deport someone without having access to the evidentiary basis of the case.
Broader implications for deportation policy
The activation of the ATRC carries significant implications for U.S. deportation policy and national security law. By using a court that allows the government to present classified evidence without public disclosure, the Trump administration is effectively creating a parallel track for removing alleged alien terrorists outside the standard immigration system.
This may become a precedence for future cases especially those involving lawful permanent residents or those people without criminal records but considered as threats to national security. It has been observed that ICE officials have said that it will not be enough for Nazira to be deported via the conventional immigration court process. This clearly shows that the administration believes that there should be an ATRC in those cases where deportation grounds are not available under normal circumstances.
“The Department’s application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America,”
Blanche said. This rhetoric aligns with the administration’s stated goal of using “every tool available” to remove alleged alien terrorists, suggesting that the ATRC may become a more frequently used mechanism in the coming years. However, the court’s secrecy and limited due-process safeguards are likely to attract continued legal challenges and scrutiny from civil liberties advocates, who argue that the ATRC’s procedures undermine fundamental fairness and transparency in the judicial process.
Nazira Haji Zada’s case is at a very early stage and it is expected that the final ruling by the court will give way to precedence of the use of ATRC in the future. This includes what type of evidence the government can present, the amount of disclosure to be made to the respondent, and finally the threshold of proof needed for the removal of a suspected individual from the country. It is expected that a lot of people will be looking forward to the case to see how the balance between the national security concerns and the process of due process will be balanced. This will help to see if ATRC becomes one of the key features in the deportation of individuals in America. At this stage, the case has shown how complex immigration law has become with regard to national security and civil liberties issues in the post-9/11 era. As the Trump administration is pushing the limits of deportation authorities, the use of ATRC is a big deal in the ongoing debate about the issue.
