Trump Activates Secret Alien Terrorist Court for First Time

The Trump administration has, for the first time in the three decades since its creation, convened the Alien Terrorist Removal Court — a secretive judicial body whose legality remains contested — in a bid to deport Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan permanent legal resident of Fort Worth, Texas, against whom no criminal charges have been filed.

An Untested Tribunal Activated

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established by Congress in 1996, yet had never been convened until Thursday’s hearing, a fact that underscores the extraordinary nature of the administration’s move. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the court’s activation as a straightforward application of legislative intent, stating that “Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court three decades ago to remove from the United States alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place.” Critics, however, argue that the court’s sudden deployment against a resident who has not been criminally charged represents a calculated effort to circumvent the due process protections ordinarily available to foreign nationals on American soil.

Five federal judges, appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from courts across the country, sit on the tribunal. At Thursday’s hearing, Judge Joan Ericksen declined a defence motion to dismiss the case immediately, while acknowledging that the court was still in the process of establishing its own “infrastructure” — a candid admission of the institution’s untested state. Ericksen took care to clarify the proceeding’s character to Haji Zada directly: “This is not a criminal matter. This is a civil matter that arises under the immigration code.”

The Case Against Nazira Haji Zada

The Justice Department’s case rests on Haji Zada’s alleged connection to a foiled attack purportedly planned by her two sons, Tawhedi and Abdullah Haji Zada, who were arrested in October 2024 after attempting to purchase two rifles and five hundred rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent. The plot, which federal authorities say was intended to coincide with the November 2024 election day, was disrupted before any violence occurred. Abdullah subsequently pleaded guilty and is serving a fifteen-year prison sentence; Tawhedi has pleaded guilty and awaits sentencing.

Government prosecutors allege that Nazira Haji Zada actively cultivated her sons’ sympathies for the Islamic State, designated by Washington as a foreign terrorist organisation, and that she had purchased a one-way ticket to Kabul, Afghanistan, in advance of the planned attack. The Justice Department claims there is “a preponderance of the evidence” against her. Yet that evidence, government lawyers told the court, includes classified material that cannot be disclosed publicly. The FBI, in a July 15 memorandum, argued that release of the underlying information “would enable terrorists and terrorist organizations to avoid preventative or detection measures or would reveal FBI or other U.S. Intelligence Community sources.”

That position drew visible scepticism from Judge Ericksen. Federal courts routinely operate with established procedures for handling classified information — procedures that balance national security interests against defendants’ rights — and the government’s insistence on near-total opacity sits uneasily within that framework.

Due Process at the Centre of the Dispute

Matthew Farley, the public defender representing Haji Zada, has mounted a direct constitutional challenge to the proceedings. Farley characterised the hearing as “a runaround for bringing a criminal case,” arguing that the administration is exploiting an obscure and legally dubious mechanism to advance its broader mass deportation agenda while avoiding the evidentiary rigour that criminal prosecution would demand. “This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,” he said.

The concern is structural as much as it is case-specific. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court operates in a manner that sharply curtails the transparency and adversarial scrutiny that define ordinary judicial proceedings. Deploying it against a permanent legal resident who faces no criminal indictment — and whose alleged culpability is filtered entirely through classified channels — raises foundational questions about the procedural safeguards available to non-citizens in the United States, questions that Thursday’s hearing has now placed, for the first time, before a functioning bench.