In a first-of-its-kind ruling, a secretive federal tribunal ordered the deportation of a Texas green-card holder based on evidence the public—and even some defense lawyers—could not see.
Story Snapshot
- The Justice Department used the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time to remove Nazira Haji Zada.
- Chief Judge Joan Ericksen approved deportation after reviewing classified evidence in a closed process.
- Defense lawyers say the court’s secrecy violated due process and blocked meaningful defense.
- The case revives a 1996 law that allows classified evidence in immigration removals.
What The Government Did And Why It Matters
The Department of Justice activated the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to seek the removal of Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national living in Fort Worth, Texas. The department called this the first case in the court’s history and tied it to alleged support for an Election Day shooting plot by family members linked to the Islamic State group. The court was created by Congress in 1996 to allow judges to weigh classified evidence while protecting sources and methods in national security cases.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, who leads the tribunal, reviewed both public filings and secret submissions before issuing an order granting removal, according to legal reporting on the outcome. Prosecutors said traditional immigration courts could not safely handle the government’s intelligence without exposing sensitive information. Officials argued the narrow, congressionally created process fits cases where foreign threats may be hard to prove in open court but still demand action to protect the public.
Defense Objections Focused On Due Process And Secrecy
Defense attorneys attacked the process as unconstitutional from the start. They said the rules were “woefully inadequate,” lowered the standard of proof, and blocked their ability to test the evidence or question key witnesses. They also said the government refused to share classified material even with cleared counsel, leaving only a very short unclassified summary to guide any defense. That approach, they argued, denied basic notice and a fair chance to respond.
Lawyers urged the court to dismiss the case and release Haji Zada, warning that a win for the government would set a model for secret removals against other lawful residents in the future. Their challenge echoed long-running concerns raised by civil liberties groups and scholars about secret evidence in immigration proceedings. Critics argue that secrecy can erode public trust and allow errors to go unchecked, especially when people cannot see or rebut what is used against them.
How This Fits A Larger Trend In Security And Immigration Law
Congress designed the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to handle rare cases that mix immigration status and national security. The law allows the use of classified intelligence that would be hard to present in a normal courtroom. Supporters say the court gives judges a legal path to prevent threats without exposing sources. Detractors counter that secrecy makes it too easy to remove people on claims the public cannot test or verify in a transparent way.
The Justice Department says it's secured a first-of-its-kind deportation of an Afghan woman through the secretive Alien Terrorist Removal Court https://t.co/bvDmcRW351 pic.twitter.com/or58NRwnMa
— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) September 11, 2026
Americans across the political spectrum will read this case through the lens of trust in government. Voters worried about terror threats will see a tool finally being used. Voters worried about overreach will see a process that can hide mistakes and crush rights. Both groups share a core fear: a system that seems to serve insiders first. The test now is whether future cases show the court can balance safety with fairness in a way that earns public confidence.
Sources:
cbsnews.com, justice.gov, keranews.org, atrc.uscourts.gov, x.com, crbcnews.com, cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
