Dormant terrorism court activated for first deportation in 30 years, raising due process concerns

For thirty years, a federal court designed to handle terrorism cases sat unused. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, created in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as part of a broader anti-terror legislative push, was built to process non-citizens accused of terrorism when evidence touching national security needed to stay sealed. No deportation case in three decades had required it—not among the estimated 4.5 million people removed from the United States since 1996. Then, this month, that changed.

Nazira Haji Zada, forty-seven years old, had lived in Texas as a legal permanent resident. She was an Afghan national with lawful status. According to a Department of Homeland Security statement released Wednesday, she has now returned to Afghanistan. The statement said she "conceded she is an alien terrorist and waived appeal of the removal order, terminating her previous status." Attorney General Todd Blanche called it "a landmark case" and "a win for national security and the rule of law." But Zada's public defenders, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, pushed back immediately, saying the case "should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy."

Zada was accused of being the "matriarch" of a family in which two men—her son Abdullah Haji Zada and her son-in-law Nasir Ahmad Tawhed—had been convicted of plotting a mass shooting on election day in 2024. Blanche had described the family as "ISIS-sympathizing." The government applied to the ATRC in July, and the machinery of this dormant institution began to turn. But Zada never went to trial. She conceded and left the country, which means the constitutional questions the court raises have never been tested in open litigation.

The ATRC operates under rules that distinguish it sharply from standard deportation proceedings. Five federal trial judges, selected by Chief Justice John Roberts, staff the court. The government must first demonstrate probable cause that a person qualifies as an "alien terrorist" under immigration law and explain why standard deportation procedures would pose a national security risk. At trial, the government needs only to prove its case "by the preponderance of the evidence"—a lower threshold than many other legal contexts demand. But the central feature that makes the court controversial is this: defendants and their lawyers may not see all the evidence against them. Some material stays classified. Some stays sealed from public view. The government provided Zada and her attorneys with what it described as "half a terabyte of documents," though it disclosed nothing about their contents.

Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at UCLA who specializes in immigration and citizenship, told DW that the Trump administration appears to be deploying the ATRC as a new tool in its deportation arsenal. "From a very practical perspective, the government's non-use reflects its view over the last 30 years that 'we don't need this court because we can essentially deport people without it,'" he said. The fact that the administration is using it now suggests a shift in strategy. Motomura speculated that the government may have chosen this path precisely because it allows disclosure to a judge in chambers rather than in open court—a way to handle sensitive material without the publicity that standard proceedings would bring.

Zada's lawyers filed a statement with the Washington Post arguing that the court itself violates the Constitution. "Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process," they wrote. The Fifth Amendment bars states from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Whether that protection extends to the ATRC's procedures remains unresolved, because Zada's case never reached a point where a judge had to rule on it. Motomura suggested the Trump administration may be frustrated by this outcome. "I bet they were disappointed," he said. "It would not surprise me if they're disappointed that the case never got litigated in court on the constitutional issue because it would allow them a different opportunity to limit the rights of people in the United States under the US Constitution."

The administration has made clear its "zero tolerance" stance on immigration. It has deported people to countries they have no connection with and deployed ICE agents widely. Given this posture, legal experts expect the ATRC will not sit dormant for another thirty years. The next case could arrive soon. And when it does, the same constitutional questions will loom—unanswered, untested, and potentially reshaping what due process means for immigrants facing removal.