The Justice Department under President Trump has revived a long-dormant national security court to seek deportation of an Afghan woman accused of aiding an ISIS-inspired plot, and a federal judge has allowed the case to continue, marking a major early win for the administration’s law-and-order approach.
A federal judge refused to dismiss the landmark effort to use the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to remove Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident living in Fort Worth, Texas. The ruling keeps in place a rare civil removal process that allows classified evidence to be considered outside ordinary public criminal trials. For Republicans who argue that national security demands tough tools, the decision demonstrates the government can use existing law to protect Americans without exposing sensitive intelligence.
Congress created the specialized five-judge court in 1996 exactly for situations involving classified national security evidence that cannot safely be disclosed in open court. After nearly 30 years of sitting unused, the ATRC was activated when the Justice Department filed an application on July 15 seeking Haji Zada’s removal. The court asked prosecutors for clearer links between the alleged conduct and terrorism statutes, the government supplemented the filing, and the judge found the response sufficient to proceed.
Federal officials say Haji Zada supported family members who planned an ISIS-inspired mass shooting aimed at Election Day crowds in 2024. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, have pleaded guilty in connection with the plot. The government alleges the family purchased rifles and ammunition from an undercover agent and prepared to travel to Afghanistan in a way consistent with plotting a mass casualty attack.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a blunt public statement about the case. “The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack.” The Justice Department contends Haji Zada indoctrinated her children, concealed radicalization from her husband, and assisted practical preparations including selling property and arranging one-way travel to Kabul before Election Day. These assertions are central to the government’s civil removal claim under the ATRC statute.
Haji Zada has not faced criminal charges; the government is pursuing deportation through a civil immigration route that permits use of classified material that cannot be safely revealed in public court. Her arrest at her Fort Worth home and transport to Washington for the ATRC hearing underscores how the administration is treating certain threats as immigration matters rather than traditional criminal prosecutions. Republicans supporting this path argue it is both lawful and necessary to protect the public while safeguarding sensitive sources and methods.
Her court-appointed public defender called the ATRC process unconstitutional and asked for dismissal, arguing the procedure bypasses due process and criminal prosecution norms. “This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional. This is a runaround to bringing a criminal case,” Farley argued. Judge Joan Ericksen rejected the immediate dismissal and denied a motion to release Haji Zada, but she left room for defense counsel to renew constitutional challenges as the case proceeds.
The ATRC proceeding requires the Justice Department to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Haji Zada qualifies as an “alien terrorist” under federal law. That civil standard is lower than the criminal burden beyond a reasonable doubt, yet it still demands coherent connections between alleged conduct and the statutory definitions. The legal fight ahead will test how far the ATRC can go before constitutional limits are reached and how courts balance national security against defendants’ rights.
Several family members already pleaded guilty: Abdullah Haji Zada, who was 17 when arrested, pleaded guilty as an adult and received a 15-year prison sentence followed by an order for removal to Afghanistan upon completion of his term. Tawhedi pleaded guilty in June 2025 to conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS and attempting to obtain firearms for a federal terrorism offense, and he awaits sentencing. Those criminal resolutions provide the government with factual footholds the civil removal case will build on.
For the Trump administration, the ATRC decision represents an important proof of concept: a specialized court that sat idle for decades is now being used to pursue national security removals. Critics will argue about constitutionality, process, and civil liberties, and the courts will sort those disputes over time. Meanwhile, supporters see this as a responsible way to remove dangerous noncitizens when classified intelligence makes open criminal trials impractical.
Add comment