DOJ completes first removal through Alien Terrorist Removal Court
The Justice Department says it completed the first removal under the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a specialized federal court Congress created in 1996 but that had not been used before July 2026.
Nazira Haji Zada, 47, an Afghan national who previously lived in Fort Worth, Texas, was removed to Afghanistan after conceding in the case and waiving her right to appeal. DOJ announced the removal on September 11, after the court’s August 20 removal order was unsealed on September 10 following her return to Afghanistan.
The case gives the public its first practical look at how the long-dormant court handles classified information, counsel, public hearings and expedited removal. It also leaves major questions about the court’s authority and due-process protections unresolved because Haji Zada agreed to removal instead of litigating the case through an appeal.
How the case unfolded
DOJ says its application, certified by Attorney General Todd Blanche, was filed July 15. Haji Zada appeared in open court for the first time on July 30, with Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen presiding.
The court issued its Order of Judicial Removal on August 20 in case number 2026-TRC-1. The court’s public docket lists an agreed motion for the removal order, a government notice of removal filed August 26, sealed filings and an order granting a motion to unseal entered September 10.
DOJ said Haji Zada was represented by two federal public defenders. The department also said it provided her lawyers with approximately half a terabyte of documents supporting its case and used classified information under the court’s statutory procedures. Haji Zada conceded that she met the legal definition of an alien terrorist, waived appeal and became permanently inadmissible to the United States.
What DOJ alleges
DOJ says Haji Zada supported an ISIS-inspired plan by family members to carry out a mass shooting around Election Day in 2024. The department identified her as the mother of Abdullah Haji Zada and mother-in-law of Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi.
Those allegations are the government’s account of the removal proceeding and should not be confused with the separate criminal cases involving her relatives. DOJ says Abdullah Haji Zada pleaded guilty as an adult and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Tawhedi pleaded guilty to terrorism-related offenses and is awaiting sentencing.
AP reported that the planned attack was stopped before it occurred. The news agency also reported that Haji Zada’s attorneys objected to the court’s legitimacy and argued that withholding evidence from lawful permanent residents and their lawyers violates due process. Her lawyers said her consent to removal should not be treated as an endorsement of the court.
How the specialized court works
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It consists of five federal district judges from different judicial circuits, appointed by the chief justice of the United States to staggered, renewable five-year terms.
Under the statute, a single judge may grant a removal application after finding that the person has been correctly identified as an alien terrorist in the United States and that removal through other available legal means would pose a national-security risk. The court then must hold a public removal hearing at which the respondent has the right to counsel and the government must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.
The government may use classified information when disclosure would threaten national security. The statute also requires an unclassified summary that the judge finds sufficient for the respondent to prepare a defense. The court’s public docket lists filings related to a classified supplement and an unclassified summary, but the public record does not describe all of the classified material.
Either side may appeal a decision after the removal hearing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In this case, however, Haji Zada waived that appeal.
What remains unsettled
This first case did not produce a broad judicial precedent. Haji Zada conceded, waived appeal and was removed before a contested appellate review could test the court’s structure, evidence procedures or limits.
Future cases will show whether the court is used more often and how judges balance classified evidence against a respondent’s ability to defend against the government’s allegations. For now, the completed removal establishes that the court created three decades ago is operational, while leaving its most difficult legal questions for another case.
Sources
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.