‘Alien terrorist’ court sat dormant for 30 years. Now it could be used to deport an alleged ISIS sympathizer


The Trump administration tried Thursday to deport an Afghan national living legally in Texas through a secretive court never before used since its creation 30 years ago.

The Justice Department told a judge in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court that 47-year-old Nazira Haji Zada should be expelled from the U.S. because she is a supporter of the Islamic State. Zada was not charged with a crime, although her son and son-in-law have been convicted of conspiring to launch an ISIS-inspired attack.

A judge did not immediately issue a decision.

Created in 1996, the little-known court provides a mechanism for the government to quickly deport noncitizens suspected of ties to terrorism. The government does not have to make its evidence public, or even share it with its targets — who are not allowed to challenge the government on how it collected the evidence.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™

Point phone camera here

Congress established the court “after immense political pressure from the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administrations and wide bipartisan support to serve as a forum to prosecute the most complex and difficult national security immigration removal cases while protecting vital classified information from public disclosure,” Aram Gavoor and Timothy Belsan wrote in a whitepaper for George Washington University’s law school. 

The court sat dormant for decades, while its five judges tended to their duties in other federal district courts. Until Thursday.

ISIS ties alleged

FBI agents arrested Zada on Tuesday at her home in Fort Worth. An FBI memo dated July 15 and released by the Justice Department said Zada “has formally pledged loyalty to ISIS” and had “worked to indoctrinate her children with ISIS ideology.”

A press release from the Justice Department described Zada as “the matriarch of an alien Afghan family” and said she was being deported “for her role in a plot to commit an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024 for which her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were previously arrested and convicted.”

A representative of Zada could not be reached for comment.

In court Thursday, her lawyer, Matthew Farley, argued that the proceeding violated Zada’s constitutional rights, according to The Associated Press. “This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,” said Farley, an assistant federal public defender. “This is a runaround for bringing a criminal case.”

But in a statement, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche accused Zada of being the head of “an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day.”

He said Congress created the court to deport “alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place.”

Round out your reading

Tags: , , ,

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

The federal government activated a 30-year-old court that allows deportation of noncitizens based on classified evidence the target cannot see or challenge, marking the first time the court has been used since its creation.

Evidence rules differ here

Unlike standard immigration proceedings, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court permits the government to withhold its evidence entirely from the person facing deportation, according to how the court was described in the article.

Legal status offers no protection

Zada was living legally in the U.S. when arrested; the court's use shows legal residency status does not shield a noncitizen from this removal process.

Constitutional challenge already filed

Zada's public defender argued in court that the proceeding violates due process rights, though a judge had not issued a ruling as of the article's publication.

Straight Arrow
Fear No Fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Center-rated reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Center-rated reporting May 2026

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more