On the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the Department of Justice announced a legal milestone with significant implications for immigration law and national security enforcement:
the first-ever 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.
The case marks the activation of a previously dormant legal mechanism that has been on the books for three decades — and one that immigration attorneys, civil liberties advocates, and legal scholars will be closely watching for its broader implications.
The Case Against Nazira Haji Zada
As the matriarch in her family, 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.
Prosecutors detailed in court documents that Zada was at the heart of the family's indoctrination into ISIS, including pledging her own allegiance to the terrorist organization and pressuring most of her children to do so as well.
Tawhedi and Abdullah Haji Zada were arrested on October 7, 2024, after purchasing firearms and ammunition to be used in an Election Day terrorist attack from an undercover FBI employee.
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.
Critically,
Haji Zada has never been charged with a crime.
Rather than pursue a criminal prosecution,
leaders at the Justice Department launched first-of-their-kind civil proceedings through the ATRC, which allows the government to use a lower standard of proof to remove someone from American soil than in a criminal proceeding, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In compliance with the ATRC statute, the government used classified information to establish that Zada is an alien terrorist, while also providing Zada and her lawyers, two federal public defenders, with approximately half a terabyte of documents supporting the government's case.
With her lawyers, Zada conceded that she is an alien terrorist and waived appeal of the removal order, terminating her previous status.
The ATRC issued an order of removal on August 20 that was unsealed earlier today following her return to her country of origin.
She was removed on August 25, though the judge unsealed the files only on Friday.
Zada is now permanently inadmissible to the United States.
What Is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court?
In 1996, Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate five U.S. district court judges to review applications for the removal of alien terrorists. Judges serve for staggered, renewable five-year terms and must be drawn from different judicial circuits.
Congress established the court through a law that advanced sweeping and controversial criminal justice and counterterrorism reforms in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. It was created to address concerns that standard deportation procedures might provide insufficient protection for classified evidence regarding terrorist activities.
Unlike executive-branch immigration judges who handle ordinary deportation cases, ATRC proceedings are assigned to Article III federal judges.
Appeals from the court would be made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
For 30 years after its creation in 1996, the ATRC had conducted no proceedings because no Attorney General had applied for removal proceedings there. While the constitutionality of the ATRC has not been ruled on, legal scholars have speculated that it was left dormant over due process concerns surrounding the possible use of secret evidence in its proceedings.
On July 15, 2026, the acting U.S. Attorney General submitted the court's first application.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen directed the removal of Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident, in the recently unsealed August 20 order.
Due Process Concerns and Constitutional Questions
The ATRC's unique procedural rules set it sharply apart from both criminal courts and traditional immigration proceedings.
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 and could not be made public for national security reasons. 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 by the government.
Public defenders representing Haji Zada had initially indicated she intended to fight the government's efforts to deport her, saying the court's secretive rules violated her due process rights.
It is unclear, however, whether those legal questions were fully aired before the court approved Haji Zada's deportation.
Legal scholar John Dorsett Niles wrote in 2008 that in theory the ATRC could be considered due process. "In practice, however, the ATRC has never been used," Niles wrote. "Perhaps to avoid an adverse constitutional ruling, the attorney general has never brought a deportation proceeding before the court."
Because Zada conceded and waived her right to appeal, this case will not produce appellate precedent addressing these constitutional questions — leaving them unresolved for future proceedings.
Reactions from Government Officials
Attorney General Todd Blanche called the outcome "a win for national security and the rule of law."
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Eisenberg stated that "Zada supported her sons' terrorist plot to attack the United States while she enjoyed the privilege of residing here as a resident alien," adding, "She abused our Nation's hospitality and represented a clear threat to our national security. The United States is a safer place now that her sons are in custody and she has been deported."
FBI Director Kash Patel called it "a historic and vitally important step in our work to protect the U.S. homeland from terrorism," saying, "An individual who supported a plot by ISIS-sympathizing family members to commit an attack in America has paid the price for that."
Practical Implications for Immigrants and Visa Holders
While the ATRC is designed for a narrow category of cases involving terrorism and classified evidence, its first successful use has significant implications for the broader immigrant community:
Lawful permanent residents are not exempt.
Zada was a woman with lawful-permanent-resident status
— a green card holder — underscoring that even those with established legal status in the United States can face removal through this mechanism if the government designates them as alien terrorists.
The standard of proof is lower than criminal proceedings.
Under the framework of the court, the U.S. can attempt to remove noncitizens from the country upon representing them as an alien terrorist under a lower standard than would be required to convict them of a criminal charge.
This means the government can seek removal even in cases where it may lack sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction.
Future use is expected.
One commentator noted, "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."
However,
Aram A. Gavoor, a former senior counsel for national security at DOJ, described the case as "a success story in national security," while noting that the ATRC is "never going to be a high volume court, nor should it be."
Constitutional questions remain unanswered. Because Zada conceded rather than litigate, the fundamental due process questions surrounding ATRC proceedings remain untested in appellate courts. A future respondent who chooses to fight could produce a landmark ruling on the constitutionality of classified evidence proceedings — a ruling that could reshape how the court operates going forward.
Looking Ahead
Zada's son, Abdullah Haji Zada, agreed as part of his plea deal to be deported to Afghanistan when his sentence is completed. His current release date is in 2037.
The ATRC's successful first deployment signals a new chapter in the government's immigration enforcement toolkit. For immigration attorneys and their clients, the key takeaway is that a legal framework that existed only in statute for three decades is now an operational reality. While targeted at terrorism-related cases involving classified evidence, its activation removes any assumption that this court will remain dormant.
Noncitizens — including lawful permanent residents — should be aware that this parallel removal system exists outside the traditional immigration court framework and carries procedural rules that differ dramatically from standard removal proceedings. Anyone who believes they may face national security-related scrutiny should seek experienced legal counsel immediately.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on your specific immigration situation, please consult a qualified immigration attorney.