For thirty years, a specialized federal court sat unused — a legal instrument forged in the anxious aftermath of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, waiting for a case that never came. Now, in the summer of 2026, the Trump administration has awakened it, filing to deport Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan permanent resident with no criminal record, on allegations that she aided an ISIS-linked family plot. The activation raises one of the oldest tensions in American law: how a nation committed to due process justifies withholding the evidence by which a person might defend herself.
Trump Administration Activates Dormant 'Alien Terrorist' Court for First Time
Nazira Haji Zada faces potential deportation; her son Abdullah Haji Zada was sentenced to 15 years in prison for attempting to provide material support to ISIS.
How do you defend yourself against evidence you cannot see?
Mark
So this court has existed for thirty years and never been used until now. Why?
Mimi
Congress created it in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, but the conditions for using it were apparently never met—or no administration chose to invoke it. It required a specific kind of case: someone the government wanted to deport on terrorism grounds where classified evidence was central to the case.
Luke
Right, but we should be clear: the government says those conditions are met here. We don't yet know if a court will ultimately agree. Ericksen's order suggests she had questions.
Mark
What makes this court different from a regular immigration court?
Mimi
The big difference is classified evidence. In normal immigration proceedings, the government has to show its evidence. Here, the government can withhold sensitive intelligence and just give the respondent an unclassified summary. The respondent and her attorney can't see or challenge the classified material.
Luke
Which raises the due process question immediately. How do you defend yourself against evidence you're not allowed to see? The Fifth Amendment applies to noncitizens, but this structure seems designed to limit their ability to examine the government's case.
Mark
And in this specific case—Haji Zada—what's the actual evidence against her?
Mimi
The unclassified summary says she pledged allegiance to ISIS, promoted its ideology to her children, and helped conceal plans for family members to relocate to ISIS territory. But those allegations are based partly on classified intelligence we don't know the details of.
Luke
And she hasn't been convicted of anything. Her son and son-in-law were arrested for the actual plot—the alleged Election Day attack. She's being pursued under a theory of support and concealment. That's a different legal question.
Mark
What did the judge do at the first hearing?
Mimi
Ericksen held a sealed hearing the day after the application was filed. No testimony was taken. But she issued an order saying the court had questions about whether the government's legal theory actually fit the facts. She asked the Justice Department to provide more analysis.
Luke
Which is important. It means the court didn't just accept the government's framing. But we should note: Ericksen did ultimately find probable cause, so the case is moving forward. We don't know yet what that means for the broader due process questions.
Le Pouls
- A court dormant since its creation in 1996 has been activated for the first time, signaling the Trump administration's willingness to deploy extraordinary legal mechanisms in its deportation campaign.
- Nazira Haji Zada — illiterate, English-speaking only through her teenage son — faces removal based partly on classified intelligence she and her attorneys are not permitted to see.
- Her son was sentenced to fifteen years for an alleged Election Day 2024 ISIS attack plot, and the government argues her alleged role as ideological enabler makes ordinary immigration courts insufficient.
- Even the court's own chief judge pushed back, questioning whether the government's legal theory fits the facts and demanding further analysis before the case could proceed.
- The case now moves forward after a probable cause finding, but the constitutional reckoning over Fifth Amendment rights for noncitizens facing secret evidence has only just begun.
For thirty years, a specialized federal court sat unused — a legal instrument forged in the anxious aftermath of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, waiting for a case that never came. Now, in the summer of 2026, the Trump administration has awakened it, filing to deport Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan permanent resident with no criminal record, on allegations that she aided an ISIS-linked family plot. The activation raises one of the oldest tensions in American law: how a nation committed to due process justifies withholding the evidence by which a person might defend herself.
On July 15, 2026, the Justice Department filed a single document that ended three decades of silence for the Alien Terrorist Removal Court — a specialized five-judge tribunal created by Congress in 1996 and never once used. The target of its inaugural proceeding is Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan woman who entered the United States legally in 2018 and has no criminal record. The government alleges she pledged allegiance to ISIS, promoted the group's ideology within her family, and helped conceal plans for relatives to relocate to ISIS-controlled territory in Afghanistan.
The case is inseparable from that of her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, who were arrested on October 7, 2024, while attempting to buy weapons from an undercover FBI agent in connection with an alleged Election Day attack plot. Abdullah pleaded guilty and received fifteen years in prison. Tawhedi also pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing. The government contends that Haji Zada was not a passive bystander but an active participant — and that ordinary immigration courts cannot safely handle the classified intelligence at the center of her case.
The court she now faces is unlike any other. Its judges are appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts; its defining power is the ability to weigh classified national security evidence while providing the defendant only an unclassified summary. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the filing as a vindication of the court's original purpose, describing Haji Zada as the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family who aided a plot against American voters.
Yet the court did not simply comply. Chief Judge Joan Ericksen held a sealed hearing the day after the application was filed and issued an order expressing concern about whether the government's legal theory actually matched the facts. She demanded additional analysis by July 22. The detail that Haji Zada is illiterate and relied on her teenage son to translate for her casts the proceeding's asymmetries in sharp relief. Ericksen ultimately found probable cause and cleared the case to move forward — but the deeper constitutional questions about secret evidence and Fifth Amendment rights for noncitizens remain very much unresolved.
On July 15, 2026, the Justice Department filed a single piece of paper that would activate a court that had sat empty for thirty years. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court, created by Congress in 1996 but never once used, suddenly had its first case: the government seeking to deport Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan woman and lawful permanent resident of the United States, on allegations that she supported ISIS and aided a terrorism plot involving her son and son-in-law.
Haji Zada was admitted to the country in 2018 with her husband. She has no criminal record. But according to an unclassified FBI summary filed with the government's application, she allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS, promoted the group's ideology to her children, and helped conceal plans for her family members to relocate to ISIS-controlled territory in Afghanistan. The allegations rest partly on classified intelligence that the government will not fully disclose to her or her attorneys. She has not been convicted of any terrorism offense. The case remains pending.
The backdrop is her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi. The FBI alleges they plotted an attack on Election Day 2024 on behalf of ISIS, and that they were arranging for female relatives and juvenile family members, including Haji Zada herself, to move to ISIS territory. On October 7, 2024, both men were arrested while attempting to purchase firearms and ammunition from an undercover FBI agent. Abdullah Haji Zada pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Tawhedi also pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the alleged plot and was awaiting sentencing while undergoing court-ordered psychiatric evaluation.
The tribunal Haji Zada now faces is unlike any other immigration court in the country. It is a five-judge panel whose members are selected by Chief Justice John Roberts. Its current judges are Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen of Minnesota, and U.S. District Judges Timothy D. DeGiusti of Oklahoma, Karin Johanna Immergut of Oregon, Kenneth M. Karas of New York, and Sara Elizabeth Lioi of Ohio. The court's defining feature is its power to consider classified national security evidence while allowing the government to provide only an unclassified summary to the respondent and her attorney. Before any case can proceed, the government must demonstrate probable cause that the person qualifies as an "alien terrorist" and that ordinary removal procedures would pose a national security risk.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the application on June 30. In a statement, he framed the case as a test of the court's purpose: "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. The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day." The government acknowledged that Haji Zada has no criminal history and argued that traditional immigration proceedings would not provide an adequate route for her removal.
Yet even in its inaugural proceeding, the court has not simply rubber-stamped the government's position. Chief Judge Ericksen held a sealed hearing on July 16, one day after the application was filed. No sworn testimony was taken. But in her subsequent order, Ericksen indicated the court had questions about whether the government's legal theory actually fit the facts. She wrote that the court had concerns about "the connection between the respondent's alleged conduct and the specific provisions of federal law invoked by the government." She directed the Justice Department to submit further factual or legal analysis by July 22, suggesting the administration's initial answers had not fully satisfied her.
The case opens a significant new front in the Trump administration's deportation agenda and provides the first real test of whether the court's procedures can withstand constitutional scrutiny. The Fifth Amendment's protections extend to noncitizens in the United States, but this tribunal's structure allows the government to withhold evidence from the person facing removal and her lawyer. No previous administration had tested those procedures because no case had ever been filed. A court filing from Abdullah Haji Zada's defense attorneys noted that his mother "is illiterate and speaks no English" and relied on her teenage son to translate for her—a detail that underscores the asymmetry at the heart of these proceedings. Chief Judge Ericksen ultimately found probable cause to support the Justice Department's application, clearing the way for the case to move forward. An initial status hearing was scheduled for Thursday morning at the federal courthouse in Washington.
Citations marquantes
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.— Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche
His mother is illiterate and speaks no English and relied on her teenage son to translate for her.— Court filing by Abdullah Haji Zada's defense attorneys
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Newsweek ↗
Politics & Governance