Trump INVOKES Deportation Law For The First Time Ever

U.S. ICE document against American flag — Photo: danielfela / Shutterstock

The United States has quietly turned on a 30-year-old “ghost court” to deport an Afghan woman accused of helping plot an ISIS-inspired Election Day massacre of American voters.

Story Snapshot

Trump administration is using the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time since it was created in 1996.
The Department of Justice says Afghan immigrant Nazira Haji Zada backed an ISIS-inspired plot targeting Election Day voters.
The court relies on secret evidence and a special process built for national security terrorism cases.
Supporters see a long-overdue tool against foreign terrorists; critics warn about secrecy and due process.

A dormant terror court is suddenly at the center of a high-stakes deportation

Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 after the first World Trade Center bombing and other terror scares, but no president ever used it until now. The court exists only to remove noncitizens the government labels “alien terrorists,” using procedures tailored for classified evidence and national security secrets. For three decades it sat idle on paper. This summer, President Trump’s Justice Department finally flipped the switch by filing the first case in its history.

The Department of Justice announced that its inaugural petition seeks to deport an Afghan woman in Texas, calling her the “matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family.” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said court records show she helped a plot “to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day.” Officials describe the case as a test run for removing foreign terrorists through this special court instead of the normal immigration system.

Who is Nazira Haji Zada and what does the government say she did?

Public records and news reports identify the respondent as Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan woman living in Fort Worth, Texas. Her son was previously convicted in an ISIS-related plan to attack the United States elections, a plot that investigators say aimed to disrupt voting with mass shootings. The Justice Department now claims Haji Zada supported or aided that plan, portraying her as part of a family network with sympathies for the Islamic State group.

A senior Justice Department official says court filings accuse her of supporting an ISIS-inspired Election Day shooting plot and maintaining ties and sympathies consistent with the statute’s broad definition of “terrorist activities.” Media accounts report that she allegedly backed logistics and encouragement for the plan, though key details remain sealed. She has not been publicly convicted of terrorism crimes herself; the current proceeding is a civil removal case, not a criminal trial. That difference matters for due process but does not stop deportation if the government proves its claim.

How this secretive court actually works

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court sits in Washington, D.C., with five federal judges chosen from around the country by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The law lets the Attorney General file applications under seal and use classified evidence, backed by a sworn statement of facts that certifies the person is an “alien terrorist” and a threat to national security. A single court judge reviews the filing first and decides whether the government showed probable cause that the target fits the statute.

In Haji Zada’s case, Chief Judge Joan Ericksen has already ruled that probable cause supports the Justice Department’s application, triggering an initial public status hearing. At the full removal hearing, the government must meet a higher standard called “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the judge must be convinced it is more likely than not that she meets the legal definition of an alien terrorist. The statute lets the government rely on secret evidence and provide only an unclassified summary to the noncitizen, or skip even that if the court agrees disclosure would harm national security.

National security urgency versus American due process instincts

Supporters of the move say this is exactly why Congress created the court: to remove foreign nationals who help terrorist plots before they can strike, even when proof depends on intelligence sources that must stay secret. From this view, waiting for a criminal conviction or a slow standard immigration case is dangerous when investigators believe someone helped plan a mass attack on voters. The Justice Department’s statement stresses using “every tool available” to remove alien terrorists from the country.

The government has activated the constitutioanlly dubious "Alien Terrorist Removal Court" for the first time in its 30 yrs of existence to speedrun the deportation Nazira Haji Zada to Afghanistan.

As with many repressive terrorism laws, @ADL was a key player in its creation. 🧵 https://t.co/cVfcPaGX1H

— darryl li (@dcli) July 30, 2026

Civil-liberties advocates and immigration lawyers answer that secrecy should not swallow basic American fairness. They warn the court can label someone an alien terrorist for “endorsing or espousing” terrorist activity, not just pulling a trigger or wiring money. Critics argue that a process built around sealed filings and classified evidence makes it hard for the accused to fight back and for the public to judge whether the government’s claims match the facts. They see the first use of this court as a major test of how much secrecy Americans will accept in the name of security.

What this first case signals for terrorism and immigration going forward

The Trump administration’s choice to launch the court with a case tied to an alleged ISIS Election Day plot sends a clear signal: terrorism-linked immigration enforcement is moving onto more aggressive legal ground. For conservatives who prioritize border security and view foreign terrorist threats as a hard red line, this looks like government finally using tools Congress gave it instead of letting them gather dust. For skeptics, the same move raises fears about mission creep, lower evidence thresholds, and a future where secret courts handle more than the “worst of the worst.”

For now, one thing is certain: the outcome of the Haji Zada case will shape how every future administration thinks about this ghost court. If the Justice Department secures removal and survives appeals, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will become a live option whenever officials claim an immigrant is tied to terror. If judges push back on secrecy or evidence, that will draw a bright line for how far national security can bend the rules. Either way, this obscure tribunal is obscure no more.