The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has for the first time used a court established nearly three decades ago to expedite the deportation of individuals deemed 'terrorists' from the United States, though critics say the move is aimed at bypassing legal procedures that protect immigrants' rights.
The hearing of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court took place on Thursday (July 17) regarding the case of Nazira Haji Zada, 47, a resident of Fort Worth, Texas. Zada is a legal permanent resident of the U.S. but has not been charged with any criminal offense.
The court was created by the U.S. Congress in 1996 but had not been used in the three decades since, and its legality is now the subject of intense debate.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche argued that the court is necessary to handle Zada's case, as she is accused of involvement in a shooting plot planned for Election Day 2024. The plot involved her two sons, Tawhedi and Abdullah Haji Zada, both of whom were arrested in October 2024 before the plan could be carried out.
Both of Zada's sons have pleaded guilty. Abdullah is serving a 15-year prison sentence, while Tawhedi awaits sentencing. The FBI said it foiled the plot when the two attempted to buy two rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover agent.
The U.S. Department of Justice said there is a 'preponderance of evidence' against Nazira, but government lawyers informed the court that the case file includes classified information that cannot be made public. In a July 15 memo, the FBI explained that disclosure could help terrorist organizations evade prevention or detection measures, or reveal intelligence sources.
However, the judge on the court expressed skepticism about the government's arguments. The DOJ accused Nazira of encouraging her son to support the Islamic State (ISIS) and planning to leave the U.S. on a one-way ticket to Kabul, Afghanistan, before the anticipated 2024 attack.
Nazira's lawyer, Matthew Farley, accused the Trump administration of seeking to advance its mass deportation campaign by circumventing standard legal safeguards. Farley called the hearing 'an end run around the law to bring a criminal case' and argued that the entire mechanism violates due process and the Constitution.
During the hearing, Judge Joan Ericksen rejected the defense attorney's motion to dismiss the case outright, but the court acknowledged it is still building its 'infrastructure.' She also clarified that Nazira is not facing criminal proceedings but rather a civil case under immigration law.
