DOJ Uses Alien Terrorist Removal Court for First-Ever Deportation
Source: X | @TheJusticeDept
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Justice carried out the first-ever deportation under the Alien Terrorist Removal Court on September 11, 2026, removing Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national from Fort Worth, Texas, assessed as an Islamic State (ISIS) supporter. The tribunal, established by Congress in 1996 but never previously activated, allows the government to use classified evidence in deportation proceedings against suspected alien terrorists without disclosing it to the subject or defense counsel.
ANALYSIS
Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on September 11, 2026, that the United States had completed its first-ever deportation through the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC). The subject was Nazira Haji Zada, 47, an Afghan national residing in Fort Worth, Texas, assessed by federal investigators as an ISIS supporter. The Department of Justice filed its initial application to activate the ATRC on July 15, 2026, starting an eight-week classified proceeding that ended with her removal to Afghanistan.
The ATRC was established under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and had never been used in the three decades since. Court procedures allow the government to present classified evidence before a Senate-confirmed Article III federal judge without disclosing that material to the deportee or her legal counsel. This distinguishes the ATRC from standard immigration courts, which rely on executive branch immigration judges. The DOJ described Haji Zada as having engaged in terrorist activity under the Immigration and Nationality Act; the specific allegations remain classified.
The announcement came on the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Blanche indicated the Haji Zada case would not be the last ATRC proceeding and declined to confirm whether additional cases are already before the court. Bloomberg Law reported that the legal approach faces expected challenges from civil liberties groups contesting the classified evidence framework as incompatible with constitutional due process requirements.
SOURCES
