President Trump’s Justice Department just opened a federal court that had existed for 30 years without hearing a single case.
Now the identity of the first person in the government’s sights has been revealed.
Her name is Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national and lawful permanent resident living in Fort Worth, Texas.
The government alleges that she supported ISIS, encouraged her children to pledge loyalty to the terrorist organization, and aided relatives who plotted a mass-casualty attack against Americans on Election Day 2024.
Those are allegations the Justice Department must prove. But this is no ordinary immigration case.
The Trump administration is asking the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to order Zada out of the United States.
Newly unsealed records exposed the extraordinary first case:
The court was not created by President Trump.
Congress established it in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, then left the legal machinery sitting untouched through five presidential administrations.
The Federal Judicial Center explains that the special court consists of five federal district judges selected by the chief justice from different judicial circuits.
Congress gave those judges a narrow assignment: evaluate sealed attorney-general applications involving suspected alien terrorists when ordinary removal procedures could expose the country to a national-security danger. No administration had ever filed such an application before July 2026.
The five judges serve staggered terms and come from different parts of the country, preventing one district from controlling the court’s national-security docket.
The attorney general may submit a sealed application seeking the removal of a suspected alien terrorist. A judge can allow the case to proceed after finding that the person was correctly identified and that ordinary removal methods could create a national-security risk.
That does not produce an automatic deportation order.
The accused receives a public hearing, has the right to counsel, and may appeal. The government bears the burden of proving that the person qualifies as an alien terrorist under federal law.
Classified information may be protected, but the government must prepare an unclassified summary detailed enough to let the accused mount a defense.
If the judge orders removal, either side can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The attorney general can also appeal if the special court refuses to let a removal application move forward.
The court therefore combines a sealed national-security screening process with a public hearing, an adversarial burden of proof, and appellate review.
In other words, this is a national-security court with a defined legal process — not a bureaucrat making a secret decision and putting someone on a plane.
The government’s unclassified summary identifies Zada as the mother and mother-in-law of two men already convicted in the 2024 plot.
Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was 17 when federal agents arrested him. Her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, had worked as a security guard for an American military installation in Afghanistan before coming to the United States.
The Justice Department said the two men acquired two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition for an ISIS-inspired attack planned for Election Day in November 2024.
Federal agents arrested the pair in October 2024 before the attack could be carried out. Prosecutors later secured guilty pleas that established the weapons purchase and ISIS support as proven parts of the criminal conspiracy behind the new removal filing.
Prosecutors said Tawhedi took steps to liquidate family assets and purchase one-way tickets for his wife and child to return to Afghanistan before the planned attack.
Abdullah Haji Zada pleaded guilty as an adult and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. Tawhedi pleaded guilty to terrorism and firearms offenses.
Both men agreed to be permanently removed from the United States after serving their sentences.
The case was investigated by the FBI’s Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force with Homeland Security Investigations, ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the U.S. Marshals Service, and state and local law-enforcement partners.
That earlier prosecution supplies the proven criminal backdrop. The new removal proceeding concerns what the government says Nazira did to support the same family plot.
The first application names a lawful permanent resident and lays out the government’s alleged ISIS connection:
The FBI memo supporting the new case alleges that Nazira backed the plot and repeatedly expressed support for ISIS.
According to the government, she encouraged her children to pledge allegiance to the terror group and resisted ordinary efforts to remove her from the country.
Politico reported that federal officials concluded the normal immigration-court system would not adequately address the national-security risk they say she presents.
The reporting identifies Nazira as a green-card holder who came to the United States about eight years ago and cannot read or write in any language. Government lawyers say her family connection is only part of the case and point separately to alleged statements and conduct supporting ISIS.
ICE officials contend that a standard removal case would move too slowly and could expose sensitive national-security information. The special process is designed to protect that information while still giving Nazira an unclassified summary and a public hearing.
The special court’s first public removal hearing was scheduled for Thursday in Washington, D.C.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche did not mince words when the application became public.
He said Congress built the court to remove alien terrorists who never should have been in the country and called the case an example of an ISIS-sympathizing family allegedly aiding a plot against American voters.
The current filing followed an FBI memo dated July 15 and Nazira’s arrest earlier this week. Government lawyers submitted supporting material under seal, then released the unclassified summary before the public hearing.
The application marks the first time the court has had to test its rules, evidence standards, and removal authority in a real case.
The hearing will decide whether the government can back that charge with evidence.
The larger policy question is already impossible to ignore.
Why did the United States create a specialized tool for alien-terror cases in 1996 and then leave it unused through the embassy bombings, 9/11, the rise of ISIS, and two decades of terror investigations?
President Trump’s administration looked at the statute and chose to use the authority Congress put on the books.
That is exactly what voters expected when they sent him back to the White House: find the powers the government already has, enforce the law, and put American safety ahead of institutional inertia.
If the allegations are proved, an ISIS supporter tied to a plot against American voters should not get to remain here because the most appropriate court had never been tested before.
The government still has to make its case. Zada still has the right to challenge it.
But after 30 years of gathering dust, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is no longer theoretical.
The Trump administration has put it to work.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at 100 Percent Fed Up. View the original article here.
Continue reading...
[ H/T WLT Report ]
