A Court Dormant for 30 Years Just Opened: Inside the First Case Before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court has existed on paper since 1996 without ever hearing a single case. That changed this week. The Justice Department filed the first application in the tribunal’s history, and the target is a 47-year-old grandmother from Fort Worth, Texas, who holds a green card and has never been charged with a crime.

Her name is Nazira Haji Zada. Federal prosecutors describe her as the matriarch of a family with sympathies toward the Islamic State, and they want her removed from the country. Documents supporting that request were unsealed late Wednesday night, hours ahead of the court’s first-ever hearing.

What This Court Actually Is

Congress created the tribunal three decades ago to handle a narrow category of cases: noncitizens the government classifies as terrorists, where the evidence against them is too sensitive to air in a standard immigration courtroom.

Five federal judges from districts around the country staff the bench, all of them chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. For now, proceedings take place at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. Before a case can move forward, the attorney general must personally sign off on the application, and the court reviews it privately before deciding whether to proceed.

Every administration since the Clinton years had the option to use it. None did — until Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved this application at the end of June.

How the Family Came to the Government’s Attention

The case grows out of a foiled plot from 2024. Two of Haji Zada’s relatives — her son Abdullah and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi — pleaded guilty in federal court in Oklahoma to charges connected to a planned mass shooting timed to Election Day that year.

According to prosecutors, the two men bought a pair of AK-47-style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent. Tawhedi was accused of liquidating family assets and buying one-way tickets to send his wife and child back to Afghanistan as part of his preparations.

Abdullah was 17 when agents arrested him. He was charged as an adult and sentenced last November to 15 years in prison; court records indicate he had already agreed to leave the United States once he completes that term. Tawhedi, who once worked as a security guard at a U.S. military installation in Afghanistan, pleaded guilty to terrorism and firearms offenses and is still awaiting sentencing while undergoing a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation.

The Allegations Against the Mother

Neither of those convictions involved Nazira Haji Zada. The government’s argument is that she knew, encouraged, and helped.

An FBI memorandum dated July 15 states that investigators developed information identifying her as an ISIS supporter who pushed her children to swear allegiance to the group. An unclassified summary filed with the removal court accuses her of working to instill the organization’s ideology in her children and of backing the plot her son and son-in-law were building.

Officials also allege she intended to move to Afghanistan alongside her siblings while the attack unfolded in the United States — and that her husband was to be left behind, unaware of any of it.

A Husband Who Worked for the U.S. Military

That husband, Abdul, spent seven years employed by the American government at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, from 2009 through 2016. The couple entered the United States together in 2018, both admitted as lawful permanent residents. FBI investigators have said he had no knowledge of what his wife, son and son-in-law were allegedly planning.

There is another detail in the record that complicates the picture. During Abdullah’s sentencing last year, his defense attorneys told the court that his mother cannot read and does not speak English, and that she depended on her teenage son to translate for her.

Why Prosecutors Bypassed Regular Immigration Court

Immigration officials have been candid about their reasoning. Haji Zada has no criminal record and holds a valid green card. Standard removal proceedings, they argue, simply would not get the result the government wants.

Blanche framed the decision as fulfilling the tribunal’s original purpose — removing people he says should never have been admitted in the first place. FBI Director Kash Patel struck a similar note, saying that entering the country and then turning against it should not be tolerated.

The Problem of Secret Evidence

Here is where the case gets legally interesting. Most of the material underpinning the application remains classified and sealed. The Justice Department says releasing it would help terrorist networks evade detection and could expose intelligence sources and the methods used to gather information.

How much of that evidence will eventually surface publicly is unclear. The tension is obvious: someone facing permanent removal from the country may never see the bulk of the case built against her.

A Judge Who Isn’t Fully Convinced Yet

Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, a Minnesota-based jurist appointed by President George W. Bush, found probable cause to let the application proceed. But she paired that finding with visible caution.

Ericksen noted that she still has questions about the government’s case and stressed that this is only the opening stage of a process with several phases ahead. She acknowledged that fighting terrorism is an objective of the highest importance and that some deference to executive judgment is appropriate in this area — but pointed out that the current threshold requires only a fair probability, not conclusive proof.

What Happens Thursday

Haji Zada was arrested earlier this week and was scheduled to appear at an initial status hearing at 11 a.m. Eastern. Unlike the classified filings, that proceeding is open to the public.

Whatever the outcome, the activation of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court marks a genuine shift. A mechanism that sat unused through five presidencies is now live, and the precedent set here will shape how future administrations approach cases where national security claims and immigration law collide.