IC Oversight & Policy — 2026-09-15

Alien Terrorist Removal Court Completes First-Ever Deportation Using Classified Intelligence Evidence After 30 Years of Existence

BLUFDOJ's activation of a 30-year-old dormant court will likely yield additional classified-evidence removals within 12 months, though Zada's waiver left core due-process challenges unresolved for future defendants.

The Justice Department announced Friday that it secured the removal of Nazira Haji Zada, 47, an Afghan national from Fort Worth, Texas, marking the first-ever use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in its 30-year history 12. Court filings unsealed the same day show Zada conceded she was an "alien terrorist" and waived appeal rights on August 20, after DOJ filed its application on July 15 and ATRC Chief Judge Joan Ericksen presided over her July 30 hearing 13. Prosecutors alleged Zada supported an ISIS-inspired Election Day 2024 plot by her son and son-in-law, both previously convicted, using classified evidence her court-appointed attorneys said they were never permitted to review 13. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Friday the department "will do this more often," while Zada's attorneys stated her consent to removal "should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy" 23.

Analysis
DOJ's success clears the path for routine use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, converting a dormant 1996 statute into an active removal channel that sidesteps criminal trial protections, with high confidence given Blanche's explicit public commitment paired with the precedent this case now sets for follow-on filings. DOJ likely will file at least one additional ATRC application and secure another classified-evidence removal within 12 months. Primary DOJ statements and independent secondary reporting converge on the timeline and DOJ's stated intent. Zada's waiver forecloses appellate review and leaves the court's constitutionality untested, since the administration may have selected this uncontested, evidentially thin case specifically to bank a precedent while avoiding judicial review. Immigration defense practitioners and Article III appellate courts must prepare for a recurring classified-evidence removal track if a second case follows; if none does, the constitutional question stays unresolved for future litigants.

4 sources