IC Oversight & Policy — 2026-07-30

Alien Terrorist Removal Court Holds First-Ever Hearing After 30 Years as FBI Presents Classified Evidence Against Suspected IS Supporter

BLUFDOJ's revival of this untested court as a deportation tool faces constitutional and procedural obstacles that make a removal order against Haji Zada very unlikely within 90 days.

The Justice Department held the first hearing in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, dormant since its creation by Congress in 1996, in Washington on Thursday, seeking removal of lawful permanent resident Nazira Haji Zada, 47, of Fort Worth, Texas 1234. Prosecutor Hayden O'Byrne told Judge Joan Ericksen that classified FBI evidence shows Zada, who has no criminal record, supported the Islamic State and helped her son-in-law radicalize relatives 134. Her son and son-in-law had already pleaded guilty and been sentenced to prison for plotting a 2024 Election Day attack tied to the case 134. Zada, arrested Tuesday, remains in custody; her public defender, Matthew Farley, called the court's secrecy procedures unconstitutional and "woefully inadequate," and Ericksen denied immediate release while requiring case-specific justification for withheld evidence 13. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved use of the court, which applies a lower preponderance-of-evidence standard than criminal prosecution 14.

Analysis
A final removal order against Haji Zada within 90 days is very unlikely: Ericksen's demand for case-specific justification on every withheld evidence item, an unresolved dispute over what her cleared special attorney may see, and the absence of settled procedural rules point toward extended interlocutory litigation before any merits ruling, with the defense's constitutional challenge to the court's secrecy procedures posing a threshold question that must be resolved first. Confidence is low, reflecting the court's complete lack of operating history outside this single case. CNN and UPI independently confirm NPR's account of the hearing. The administration's choice to revive a dormant 1996 statute may function less as a response to case-specific evidence strength than as a deliberate test to establish precedent for wider use of classified-evidence removal proceedings. Continued litigation without a ruling would confine that program to this single case and defer any decision on expanding it to other lawful permanent residents.

4 sources