After three dormant decades, a secretive federal court removed an Afghan lawful resident using classified evidence and no criminal charge, marking a major shift in U.S. immigration enforcement.
Story Snapshot
- The Justice Department used the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) for the first time to remove Nazira Haji Zada.
- Chief Judge Joan Ericksen directed the removal; the Department of Justice later announced the deportation.
- Congress created the ATRC in 1996 to handle cases involving classified evidence in terrorism-related removals.
- The case tests how the government balances security, due process, and transparency.
What Happened: A Long-Unused Court Finally Acts
The Department of Justice announced the first-ever case in the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, naming Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old in Fort Worth, Texas. The special court held its inaugural proceeding after the filing and later issued an order directing removal, which the Department of Justice said it executed through deportation. News outlets reported that officials turned to this court because they sought to rely on classified information tied to alleged support for the Islamic State.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, who leads the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, presided over the case and oversaw both public steps and sealed filings. Axios reported that Judge Ericksen directed the removal of Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident, and that the Department of Justice confirmed the deportation on September 11, 2026. National coverage described how this route avoided a criminal charge and instead used a national security removal process built for sensitive evidence.
What Is the ATRC: Purpose, Power, and Process
Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 to let the government use classified material to prove that a noncitizen meets the legal standard of an “alien terrorist” while protecting sources and methods. The law allows the judge to review sensitive material privately and under seal, known as ex parte and in camera review. Lawmakers designed this to move faster than normal immigration courts when evidence cannot be shared in full without harming national security.
Under federal law, the Attorney General can file an application in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court when classified information supports removal on terrorism grounds. The court’s procedures concentrate power in a small bench of federal judges designated for this task, with tight rules for handling secret evidence. Analysts and historians note that, despite urgent aims in the 1990s, no administration used the court until 2026 because of due process concerns and the complexity of the tool.
Why It Matters: Security, Rights, and Trust in Institutions
This first case shows how the government may act when it believes a threat exists but cannot disclose evidence without risk. Supporters argue this protects the country from plots while guarding intelligence sources. Critics worry that closed evidence can weaken a person’s ability to fight the case. The core tension is clear: how to keep people safe while giving fair process when facts stay secret by law.
NEW: The first deportation of the constitutionally suspect Alien Terrorist Removal Court happened weeks ago, following a secret plea deal.
DOJ told the public about the deportation on 9/11—a choice that tells us much about where 9/11 took the U.S. and where we are now.
Law…
— Chris “Law Dork” Geidner (@chrisgeidner) September 11, 2026
For many Americans across the spectrum, this is a test of government priorities and accountability. People on the right want strong action against terrorism and illegal activity. People on the left want civil rights guarded even in hard cases. Both want a system that is clear, honest, and effective. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court’s first ruling will set expectations for how far the state can go, and how it explains those steps to the public.
Sources:
pjmedia.com, justice.gov, npr.org, politico.com, axios.com, congress.gov, newsmax.com
