On September 11, 2026 — the 25th anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil — the Department of Justice announced a legal milestone that could reshape the landscape of national security-related immigration enforcement.
In the first-ever case before the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), 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.
The case marks the first use of a specialized federal court that
Congress established decades ago, and which no previous administration had used.
Legal experts say the precedent could significantly expand the government's ability to deport noncitizens linked to terrorism — while raising troubling questions about due process and the use of secret evidence.
The Underlying Terror Plot
The case stems from a foiled ISIS-inspired attack planned around the 2024 presidential election.
Abdullah Haji Zada, 19, was sentenced to serve 15 years in federal prison for knowingly receiving, attempting to receive, and conspiring to receive a firearm and ammunition to be used in an act of terrorism. He and a co-conspirator received two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition, knowing they would be used in a terrorist attack on Election Day in November 2024 on behalf of ISIS.
Abdullah and his brother-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were arrested October 7, 2024, at a rural Oklahoma location after purchasing the weapons during a meeting with an undercover FBI employee.
Tawhedi admitted after his arrest that the two bought the guns to commit an attack on Election Day "targeting large gatherings of people" and said they expected to die and be martyrs.
Nazira Haji Zada was not criminally charged. Instead, the government alleged that,
as the family "matriarch," she worked to "radicalize" her family and "formally pledged loyalty to ISIS," and that she and her son-in-law "worked to indoctrinate her children with ISIS ideology and have them pledge loyalty to ISIS."
Prosecutors said she had made plans to sell the family home to finance the plot, which needed money to buy guns and ammunition.
How the ATRC Works — and Why It Matters
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was first created in 1996 to allow the government to deport noncitizens who could not be removed by the traditional legal process because the information about their cases was classified and could not be made public for national security reasons.
Congress created the ATRC through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which was one of the responses to the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing in 1995.
The court operates under markedly different rules than standard immigration or criminal proceedings.
The court has jurisdiction to swiftly remove alien terrorists from the United States when the government establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that an alien is a terrorist.
That "preponderance" standard — essentially meaning more likely than not — is far lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal cases.
Not only does the ATRC require less evidence, but it also permits the use of lower quality evidence that could be excluded in a criminal case. The court explicitly allows the government to use "the fruits of electronic surveillance and unconsented physical searches" without the same opportunity to object that is afforded to criminal defendants. Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply, opening the door to hearsay evidence.
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.
For classified information, the court in some instances affords green card holders a court-appointed special attorney who may review and contest the evidence on the immigrant's behalf, without disclosing the evidence to the immigrant.
The court is run and staffed by U.S. federal district court judges confirmed to the judiciary pursuant to Article III of the Constitution and then appointed to the ATRC by the Chief Justice of the United States.
The Timeline of Zada's Removal
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.
The government used classified information to establish that Zada is an alien terrorist,
and
the Justice Department shared half a terabyte of documents with her lawyers in support of its evidence.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen directed the removal of Nazira Haji Zada in a recently unsealed August 20 order.
She was deported on August 25 after she and her team of public defenders agreed she would be deported and accepted her designation as a terrorist, making her permanently barred from ever entering the U.S.
The Justice Department announced the resolution on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, although the woman was deported last month.
Due Process Concerns and Constitutional Questions
While the DOJ hailed the deportation as a national security victory, Zada's defense attorneys offered a pointed rebuttal.
Her attorneys said her decision to consent to removal "should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy."
"Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process," the defense lawyers said. "We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue."
Because Zada conceded her designation and waived appeal,
major legal questions about the court's secretive procedures will remain unanswered.
The constitutionality of the ATRC — untested for 30 years — remains unresolved.
What This Means Going Forward
Legal observers are already asking whether the government will use this proof-of-concept case to bring additional ATRC proceedings.
"It'll be interesting to see what they do next," says Jess Dawgert, a former DOJ attorney. "I can't imagine that now that they've done this and got this confession fairly quickly that they're not going to use it again."
The DOJ win before the previously dormant court could give the administration a path to remove people it links to terrorism while keeping much of its evidence secret.
A case reaches the ATRC by DOJ applying and showing probable cause that a person is engaged in "terrorist activity" as defined by Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The definition is broad and flexible, in that it can include children and spouses and can include providing any kind of transportation or housing.
Practical Implications for Immigrants and Green Card Holders
This case carries several important takeaways for lawful permanent residents and the broader immigrant community:
- Lawful permanent residents are not immune. Zada held a green card and had been living legally in the United States since 2018. Her LPR status was revoked through ATRC proceedings, demonstrating that even long-established residents can face expedited removal under terrorism-related authorities.
- The evidentiary bar is lower. Unlike criminal proceedings, the ATRC requires only a preponderance of the evidence and does not follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. This means the government faces a significantly lower hurdle in these proceedings than it would in a criminal prosecution.
- Classified evidence can be used without full disclosure. Respondents and their attorneys may never see the classified evidence being used against them — a departure from fundamental principles of adversarial litigation that defense attorneys have flagged as constitutionally suspect.
- The definition of "terrorist activity" is expansive. The INA's definition of terrorist activity under which the ATRC operates is broad enough to potentially encompass individuals who provide material support — including housing or transportation — to those involved in terrorism-related activities.
- Constitutional challenges remain unresolved. Because Zada conceded rather than litigate, the ATRC's procedures have never been tested against constitutional challenge. Future respondents who choose to fight could bring the court's legitimacy before appellate review.
The activation of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court after three decades of dormancy represents a significant expansion of the government's deportation toolkit. Whether the ATRC becomes a regularly used instrument or remains a rarely deployed option will depend on both administrative priorities and how courts ultimately rule on its constitutionality — a question this first case deliberately left unanswered.
ClinchLaw will continue to monitor developments related to the ATRC and its potential impact on immigration enforcement. If you have questions about how national security-related immigration matters may affect your status, consult with an experienced immigration attorney.