Forty Minutes That Made Legal History: The First Hearing of a Court That Sat Idle for 30 Years

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court finally convened on Thursday in Washington, D.C., thirty years after Congress created it and after five presidents declined to use it.

The proceeding lasted about forty minutes. The respondent was a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident from Fort Worth, Texas, who has never been charged with a crime.

Her name is Nazira Haji Zada. She was arrested earlier this week and listened to the hearing through two interpreters. She interjected once at the outset, interrupting the courtroom clerk; her remarks were not translated. She said little else.

What the Government Alleges

Prosecutor Hayden O’Byrne stated the position directly: the United States alleges Haji Zada is an alien terrorist and holds classified evidence to prove it.

Pressed by the judge for more, prosecutors said the FBI had developed information that she supports the Islamic State and worked with her son-in-law to radicalise other members of the family. Filings also allege she intended to fly one-way to Kabul ahead of a planned attack in 2024.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who approved the application at the end of June, framed the case as fulfilling the statute’s original purpose — removing people he says should never have been admitted.

The Justice Department has described her in filings as the matriarch of an Afghan family. Its application was filed July 15.

The Case That Preceded It

She came to the government’s attention through a prosecution that has already concluded in part.

Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were arrested in Oklahoma on October 7, 2024. Prosecutors say Tawhedi acquired two rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent, with the intent of targeting crowds around Election Day.

Both pleaded guilty. Abdullah, who was 17 at the time of his arrest and charged as an adult, is serving 15 years. Tawhedi is awaiting sentencing.

Neither conviction involved his mother. That is the entire reason this proceeding exists in this forum rather than a criminal courtroom.

What Kind of Proceeding This Is

Judge Joan Ericksen made a point of clarifying the category early, telling Haji Zada directly that this is not a criminal matter but a civil one arising under the immigration code.

That distinction carries enormous practical weight. Under the court’s framework, the government can seek to remove a noncitizen by establishing they are an alien terrorist under a standard far lower than the beyond-reasonable-doubt threshold required for conviction. The Justice Department has said its case meets a preponderance of the evidence.

Five federal judges from districts around the country staff the bench, all selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Appeals run to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The Defense’s Argument

Assistant Federal Public Defender Matthew Farley did not confine himself to the facts. He attacked the mechanism.

He called the entire scheme a violation of due process and unconstitutional, arguing it infringes his client’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. His sharpest characterisation was that the proceeding amounts to a run-around for bringing a criminal case — securing the outcome of a prosecution without meeting its burdens.

He also targeted what the government has actually disclosed. Attempting to remove a lawful permanent resident on the strength of a few paragraphs of unclassified filings, he argued, is contrary to due process, describing those filings as woefully inadequate.

Ericksen declined his request to dismiss the case immediately.

The Secrecy Question

Nearly all of the substance remains sealed.

An FBI memorandum dated July 15 states that disclosure would enable terrorists and terrorist organisations to evade preventive or detection measures, or would expose intelligence sources.

That justification is not unusual in national security litigation — but neither is handling classified material in open court. Federal courts have established procedures for exactly this problem, including cleared defense counsel and classified supplements reviewed only by the judge. Ericksen has expressed some scepticism about the government’s framing.

How much the defense and the public will ultimately see is now among the first questions the parties must litigate, and there is no settled precedent to guide it.

A Judge Acknowledging She Is Improvising

Ericksen, a Minnesota-based jurist appointed by President George W. Bush, was unusually candid about the situation she has been handed.

She told a courtroom filled with government employees and reporters that the court’s infrastructure is still coming into focus and its procedures untested after three decades of disuse. She conceded her handling might at times be inelegant, while promising to be careful and circumspect and pledging fealty to the Constitution.

When Farley mentioned having read the academic literature on why the court had never been used, Ericksen replied that she had probably read the same law review articles — joking that there were not many of them.

That exchange captures the situation better than any characterisation. Both sides are working from a nearly empty precedential record.

Why the Stakes Extend Beyond One Case

Supporters of the government’s approach make a straightforward argument: Congress passed this statute, it remains law, and the executive branch is entitled to use tools the legislature provided. Where genuine intelligence exists that cannot safely be disclosed, a mechanism designed for exactly that circumstance seems the appropriate venue.

Critics see something else. Activating a dormant court to remove a permanent resident who has not been charged, on evidence she may never see, tests how far the government can go in substituting civil immigration proceedings for criminal ones. If it works here, the reasoning goes, it will be used again.

Ericksen’s own posture suggests she understands the case will be scrutinised. She has said the matter sits at an early stage of a multi-phase process, and that the current threshold requires only a fair probability rather than definitive proof.

What Happens Next

No date has been set for the removal hearing itself.

Before that, the parties will argue over access to classified material — what defense counsel may review, what the public may learn, and what safeguards apply. Farley’s constitutional challenge to the court’s legitimacy will proceed alongside it.

Whatever Ericksen decides is likely headed to the D.C. Circuit, which will confront a question no appellate court has ever had occasion to answer.