Justice Department’s First Use of Alien Terrorist Removal Court

The Justice Department recently made history by using the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time. This special court was established nearly three decades ago, but this marks its initial known application. The case involved Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan citizen who held lawful permanent resident status in the United States. The proceedings concluded with her removal from the country, permanently ending her residency and barring her return.

This event highlights a unique aspect of national security and immigration law, allowing the government to pursue removal based on classified information without public disclosure. The process is distinct from typical criminal prosecutions and immigration proceedings, raising questions about due process for individuals involved.

Understanding the Alien Terrorist Removal Court

Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996. Its purpose is to handle cases where the government seeks to remove individuals from the United States who are alleged to be terrorists. The court’s process is designed to manage situations involving classified information. This allows the government to present evidence related to national security without revealing sensitive details that could compromise ongoing investigations or intelligence operations.

The governing statute defines an “alien terrorist” and outlines the conditions under which the Attorney General can seek removal through this court. A key feature is the ability to use classified evidence, which is a significant departure from standard legal proceedings where all evidence is typically made public.

Key Legal Features of the Court

The court operates under specific legal standards and procedures. A judge must find probable cause that the person is correctly identified as an alien terrorist and that their removal poses a risk to national security. The evidentiary standard required is a “preponderance of evidence,” which is less stringent than the standard used in criminal prosecutions.

In the case of Nazira Haji Zada, the government filed its application on July 15, 2026. Haji Zada appeared in court on July 30, and a Senior U.S. District Judge signed the removal order on August 20, 2026. The entire proceeding concluded just five days before her removal on August 25, 2026.

The Nazira Haji Zada Case

Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national, had been living in Fort Worth, Texas, as a lawful permanent resident. The Justice Department’s use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court against her marked the first time this mechanism had been employed. The case concluded with an agreed order, where Haji Zada conceded that she met the criteria of an “alien terrorist” and waived her right to appeal the decision.

The court’s order officially terminated Haji Zada’s lawful permanent resident status. It also permanently barred her from being admitted back into the United States. This resolution addressed both her immigration status and her future ability to seek entry into the country.

National Security vs. Criminal Prosecution

The case against Haji Zada was handled as a national-security removal process, not a criminal prosecution. This distinction is important because the legal standards and procedures differ. In a criminal case, the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in this removal proceeding, the standard was a preponderance of evidence, meaning it was more likely than not that the conditions for removal were met.

The use of classified evidence in this context means that the full details of the government’s case may not be publicly known. This aspect of the proceeding is central to the court’s function but has also drawn criticism.

Due Process Concerns

The Justice Department’s first use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has sparked debate, particularly regarding due process. Critics have raised concerns about the government’s handling of evidence, arguing that bringing permanent residents into court while withholding material from them and their attorneys may violate their rights. The closed nature of the national-security process, while intended to protect sensitive information, can make it difficult for individuals to fully understand and challenge the evidence against them.

This objection focuses on the inherent tension between national security needs and the rights of individuals. The proceeding was designed to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information, but this can create challenges for the accused. The government relied on evidence connected to its allegations, but the specifics of that evidence were not shared publicly.

The department’s decision to use this court signals an intent to utilize this mechanism in future cases involving national security concerns and classified information. The law’s activation after nearly 30 years highlights a shift in how such cases might be handled.

Frequently Asked Questions