Secretive Alien Terrorist Removal Court Invoked in Texas Deportation Case

The Trump administration has convened the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time since the tribunal was created in 1996, launching a civil immigration case aimed at removing a legal permanent resident living in Fort Worth, Texas.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche filed the action on July 30, 2026, seeking the deportation of Nazira Haji Zada. The filing alleges Zada, 47, helped facilitate an ISIL-linked plot connected to her two sons, who authorities arrested in October 2024 for allegedly planning an election-day attack.

First use of a rarely activated 1996 tribunal

Officials are relying on the specialized court as an alternative to standard criminal trial procedures. The Justice Department said the approach is intended to prevent classified intelligence from becoming public through typical courtroom processes.

The government has framed the matter as a civil proceeding under the immigration code rather than a criminal prosecution. The Justice Department also said it believes the case meets a preponderance of evidence threshold for removal, while acknowledging Zada has not been charged with a criminal offense.

Government rationale centers on classified intelligence

According to the government’s position presented in the filing, the mechanism is being used to protect sensitive information that would otherwise face disclosure risks in open court. The action reflects an effort to pursue deportation without running a criminal case that could require more extensive public evidentiary presentation.

The move places a little-known part of the immigration enforcement toolkit at the center of a national security-related removal effort, with the administration arguing that the civil forum can address sensitive allegations while keeping intelligence sources and methods out of the public record.

Defense challenges and early court rulings

Defense counsel Matthew Farley disputed the legality of the process, arguing the administration is using an obscure procedure to avoid due process protections for foreign nationals. The defense has also challenged the constitutionality of the proceedings, according to statements made in court.

Presiding Judge Joan Ericksen denied an immediate motion to dismiss during Thursday’s hearing. Ericksen said the court is still putting its operating framework in place, indicating that the tribunal is effectively building its procedural footing as it begins work on this case.

Civil removal case, not a criminal prosecution The court emphasized that the proceeding is strictly civil under immigration law. That distinction matters because the government is pursuing deportation rather than seeking a criminal conviction, even as the allegations involve an ISIL-linked plot and a national security narrative.

What remains unresolved is how the tribunal’s developing infrastructure will shape scheduling, evidentiary handling, and the parties’ ability to litigate key constitutional questions. For now, the case stands as a notable change in how the federal government says it plans to handle certain national security-related deportation efforts.