A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected a request to dismiss the case against Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan woman facing deportation under the Trump administration’s use of a long-dormant court designed to handle cases involving suspected terrorists. This marks the first public hearing in the history of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), a specialized tribunal established in 1996 but never used until now. The case centers on Zada, a lawful permanent resident who the Justice Department alleges supported an Islamic State-linked plot to carry out a mass shooting during the 2024 U.S. election. Federal Public Defender Matthew Farley, representing Zada, argued before U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen that the case violates due process and is unconstitutional. Farley requested immediate release of his client, a request Ericksen denied. However, the judge indicated that the issue would be revisited during a future detention hearing. The hearing, held on July 30, 2026, was the first time the ATRC has convened since its creation, highlighting both its novelty and the controversy surrounding its use. Zada, 47, resides in Fort Worth, Texas, and was arrested by FBI agents on July 29. According to an unclassified FBI summary filed with the court, Zada is accused of supporting her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, in an ISIS-inspired plot to attack Americans on Election Day 2024. The FBI alleges that Zada pledged loyalty to the Islamic State, promoted its ideology among her children, and facilitated the family’s relocation to ISIS-controlled territory in Afghanistan. The summary also states that Zada helped fund the plot by selling property and that she encouraged her children to pledge allegiance to the group. Abdullah Haji Zada and Tawhedi were arrested in late 2024 while attempting to purchase firearms and ammunition from an undercover FBI agent. Both men pleaded guilty in federal court in Oklahoma to charges related to the plot. Abdullah, who was 17 at the time of his arrest, was charged as an adult and later pleaded guilty to gun-related offenses. Tawhedi pleaded guilty to terrorism and gun charges. His attorneys described him as having been influenced by his older brother-in-law, rather than being a willing participant in the plot. The ATRC was created by Congress in 1996 under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. It was intended to handle cases where classified national security information is involved and traditional immigration proceedings are insufficient. Unlike regular immigration courts, the ATRC allows the government to present classified evidence without revealing it to the defendant. Defendants are restricted from reviewing the evidence or challenging how it was obtained, a practice critics argue undermines due process. The case against Zada is the first to be processed through the ATRC, and it has drawn attention from legal experts and civil liberties advocates. The court’s structure mirrors that of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which also operates in secrecy and involves high-level judicial oversight. Five judges, all appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, currently serve on the ATRC, with Joan Ericksen of Minnesota serving as chief judge. The Justice Department’s application to use the ATRC was filed on July 15, 2026, and was kept confidential until a new court website was launched on July 17. The application, which remains largely classified, was approved by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who stated that Zada “never should have been here in the first place.” The government argues that Zada’s presence in the U.S. posed a national security risk, particularly given her familial ties to individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses. Legal scholars and immigration advocates have raised concerns about the implications of using the ATRC. Andrew “Art” Arthur, a former immigration judge, noted that the court has never been used before due to unresolved legal questions about its constitutionality and transparency. Critics argue that the court’s secrecy and lack of procedural safeguards could lead to abuses of power, especially in cases involving individuals with no criminal record. Zada, who appears to have no formal criminal history, has been granted access to an interpreter during the proceedings and is allowed to consult with an attorney with a security clearance. Despite these measures, her defense team contends that the process is fundamentally flawed. Farley emphasized that the case represents an attempt to bypass traditional legal standards, allowing the government to use a lower evidentiary threshold to justify deportation. As the case moves forward, the ATRC is expected to hold a public hearing following the submission of an unclassified summary of the evidence. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future uses of the court, potentially expanding the government’s ability to deport individuals based on classified intelligence without full disclosure. For now, the focus remains on the legal battle over whether the ATRC’s procedures comply with constitutional protections.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
