On September 11, 2026 — the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks — the Department of Justice announced a historic legal milestone:
the first-ever completed case before the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), in which Nazira Haji Zada, 47, an Afghan national previously residing in Fort Worth, Texas, was removed from the United States after conceding that she is an alien terrorist.
This was the first case ever brought before the ATRC, which Congress established decades ago, and which no previous administration had used.
The announcement marks a turning point in U.S. immigration enforcement and raises urgent questions about what this long-dormant court could mean for noncitizens going forward.
The Case: An ISIS-Inspired Election Day Plot
As the matriarch in her family, Haji Zada supported a plot to commit an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024 for which her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were previously arrested and convicted.
Tawhedi and Abdullah Haji Zada were arrested on Oct. 7, 2024, after purchasing firearms and ammunition to be used in an Election Day terrorist attack from an undercover FBI employee.
According to court documents,
the pair received two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition, knowing that the firearms and ammunition would be used in connection with a terrorist attack on Election Day in November 2024, on behalf of ISIS.
Nazira's son Abdullah, who was 17 at the time of his arrest, entered his guilty plea as an adult and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Co-conspirator
Tawhedi pleaded guilty to two terrorism-related offenses: conspiring and attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS, and receiving firearms and ammunition in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism.
Both men face deportation to Afghanistan upon their release.
Haji Zada herself was never charged with a crime.
Instead of charging Haji Zada in the criminal justice system, leaders at the Justice Department launched the first-ever civil proceedings at the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
What Is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court?
Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 to make it easier for the Justice Department to use classified evidence to deport people from U.S. soil.
The court was established under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, but
for 30 years after its creation, the ATRC had conducted no proceedings because no Attorney General had applied for removal proceedings there, and legal scholars have speculated that it was left dormant over due process concerns surrounding the possible use of secret evidence.
The government must first submit an application showing probable cause to believe that an immigrant is an "alien terrorist" and that regular immigration procedures would pose a risk to national security. If that application is granted, the government moves to a removal hearing at which it must meet a higher evidentiary standard.
Critically,
the statute authorizes the government to remove someone from the country based on evidence the person being removed never sees and doesn't meaningfully have an opportunity to contest.
A 2004 report from a bipartisan national commission on terrorism found DOJ attorneys had reviewed at least 100 cases for possible applications since the court's creation, but all were rejected.
How the Case Unfolded
The application to remove Zada, certified by Attorney General Todd Blanche, was filed on July 15, and Zada appeared in open court for the first time on July 30.
At that initial hearing,
under prodding from Senior U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, prosecutors said the FBI had developed information that she's a supporter of the Islamic State who worked with her son-in-law to "radicalize" other family members.
In compliance with the ATRC statute, the government used classified information to establish that Zada is an alien terrorist. Additionally, the government provided Zada and her lawyers, two federal public defenders, with approximately half a terabyte of documents supporting the government's case.
Haji Zada's court-appointed attorneys, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, contested the constitutionality of the case in court filings, adding that they weren't permitted to review evidence.
At the initial hearing, her public defender declared:
"This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional."
Despite those objections,
Haji Zada opted to leave the United States rather than continue litigating the case.
In unsealed court filings dated Aug. 20, Haji Zada waived her rights to challenge the detention and agreed to the deportation. Senior U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen ordered her removal the same day.
The DOJ announced the case on the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, although Haji Zada was actually deported to Afghanistan on Aug. 25.
Zada is now permanently inadmissible to the United States.
Her admission will not be used in criminal proceedings.
Attorney General Todd Blanche called the outcome a landmark:
"This landmark case, resulting in the prompt removal of this alien terrorist to her country of origin, is a win for national security and the rule of law."
Due Process Concerns and Legal Debate
The activation of the ATRC has sparked significant legal debate. Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck noted:
"There is no doubt that there are serious due process concerns about the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, both in how it's designed and in how it would work in practice, especially with individuals who are lawful permanent residents or others who have clear and well-settled due process rights."
The court was set up to deport noncitizens who could not be removed by the traditional legal process because the information about their cases was classified. The targets of noncitizen terrorist removal proceedings — including legal permanent residents — are not permitted to review the classified evidence against them, and unlike criminal proceedings, they are barred from legally challenging how the evidence was collected.
As the Brennan Center has noted, the legal definition of an "alien terrorist" who has engaged in "terrorist activity" is broad and flexible.
Past administrations have avoided mobilizing the court, in part due to the availability of other legal avenues for a suspected terrorist's detainment and continued supervision.
The administration's novel use of the court is one of several measures it has tried to speed up deportations at the cost of immigrants' due process rights.
DOJ spokesperson Emily Covington said the department plans to "use every tool available to bring alien terrorists to justice and remove them from the United States, including this court."
What This Means for Immigrants and Green Card Holders
For lawful permanent residents and other noncitizens, the successful use of the ATRC introduces a new and powerful government enforcement mechanism. Several practical implications stand out:
- Lower evidentiary threshold:
- Secret evidence: Respondents and even their attorneys may not be able to review classified evidence used against them, a stark departure from traditional removal proceedings.
- Permanent consequences: A finding that an individual is an "alien terrorist" results in permanent inadmissibility to the United States and termination of lawful permanent resident status.
- Broad definitions: The statutory definition of "alien terrorist" and "terrorist activity" is broad, which immigration advocates worry could be applied expansively in future cases.
Legal scholars have noted that the due process questions are most severe for lawful permanent residents, whose rights most closely approximate those of citizens.
With the DOJ signaling its intent to continue using the court, noncitizens facing any national security-related allegations should be aware that this additional removal pathway now exists as a practical reality.
Some scholars have argued that it is critical to bring in a non-political federal judge to serve as a neutral check and define legitimate boundaries on who qualifies as an "alien terrorist."
Whether the ATRC remains limited to clear-cut terrorism cases or expands to become a broader enforcement tool will be one of the most significant immigration law questions in the months ahead.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a noncitizen with concerns about removal proceedings or national security-related immigration issues, consult a qualified immigration attorney.