Coverage spread: 2 sources — 1 left · 1 center
Lean ratings via AllSides / Media Bias-Fact-Check. How this works.
The U.S. Department of Justice this week activated the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time since Congress created it in 1996, using the special tribunal in an effort to deport Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident originally from Afghanistan who lives in Fort Worth, Texas. Federal agents arrested Zada earlier in the week, and a hearing was held Thursday in Washington, D.C., before Senior U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, who normally sits on the federal bench in Minnesota.
What prosecutors allege
Prosecutors, including Hayden O’Byrne, told the court that the government is designating Zada an “alien terrorist,” alleging she supported the Islamic State and worked with her son-in-law to radicalize other family members. Much of the government’s evidence remains classified, and details were pried out largely through questioning by Judge Ericksen rather than volunteered by prosecutors. The case follows earlier criminal prosecutions of Zada’s son and son-in-law, who were convicted for plotting to attack the 2024 elections on behalf of ISIS; both men received prison sentences and are slated for deportation once they complete them. Notably, the Justice Department chose not to pursue criminal charges against Zada herself, instead initiating this novel civil removal proceeding.
How the court works and why it’s unusual
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established by Congress in 1996 specifically to give the government a mechanism for using classified evidence to deport people accused of terrorism ties, without the constraints of a criminal trial. Because it operates under civil procedure, the government need only meet a lower evidentiary bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required in criminal cases. Despite existing on the books for three decades, the court had never been used until this proceeding, meaning there is no precedent for how it should function. Judge Ericksen acknowledged the institution’s infrastructure is still being built out — including a newly created website and an electronic case-filing system — and cautioned that the process might appear “inelegant” as it develops in real time.
The hearing itself
The roughly 40-minute hearing drew an audience of government staff and journalists. Zada, assisted by two interpreters, spoke only briefly, interrupting the courtroom clerk at the outset in remarks that were not translated for the record; she otherwise said little. Her court-appointed public defender, Matthew Farley, immediately signaled a constitutional challenge, arguing that the entire removal scheme violates due process and that the procedural protections afforded to his client are “woefully inadequate.” Zada is being held in custody while the case proceeds.
How the coverage compares
NPR provided the most substantive account, laying out the sequence of events, direct quotes from prosecutor Hayden O’Byrne and public defender Matthew Farley, and specific procedural details about Judge Ericksen’s rulings and the court’s undeveloped infrastructure. NPR’s framing emphasizes the historic, untested nature of the proceeding and foregrounds the due-process objections raised by the defense, while also connecting the case to the prior criminal convictions of Zada’s son and son-in-law for the 2024 election-related ISIS plot. The Hill’s article on the same subject was listed among sources but no article text was available for this synthesis, so its specific emphasis and any additional details it may have reported cannot be characterized here. Based on available material, there is no indication of factual disagreement between outlets — the shortfall is simply in available text rather than conflicting reporting.
Why it matters
This marks the first real-world test of a legal tool Congress designed nearly 30 years ago but that had never been invoked, raising immediate questions about how classified-evidence deportation proceedings will function in practice and whether they can withstand constitutional scrutiny. Because the Alien Terrorist Removal Court allows the government to sidestep the higher evidentiary standards of criminal court while still relying on secret evidence, civil liberties concerns are already surfacing through the public defender’s due-process challenge. The case also illustrates a broader prosecutorial strategy: rather than charge a suspect criminally, the government can pursue removal through a civil pathway with lower proof requirements, a precedent that could shape how similar terrorism-related immigration cases are handled going forward. The outcome may determine whether this dormant court becomes a regularly used instrument of immigration enforcement or remains constrained by legal challenges to its constitutionality.
Sources
Featured photo: ajay_suresh via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)