Updated July 30, 2026 at 2:09 PM EDT
The Justice Department has activated a special court that's never before been used to argue for the removal of a woman accused of supporting the Islamic State.
Prosecutors detailed some of the government's case in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the first such proceeding since Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996. Authorities want to deport Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident who resides in Fort Worth, Texas.
Much of the evidence against Zada, 47, remains classified. But under prodding from Senior U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen, prosecutors said the FBI had developed information that she's a supporter of the Islamic State who worked with her son-in-law to "radicalize" other family members.
"In this case, the United States is alleging that Ms. Haji Zada is an alien terrorist...and that the U.S. has classified evidence to prove that," prosecutor Hayden O'Byrne said.
The Justice Department already brought criminal charges against her son and son-in-law for trying to attack the 2024 elections on behalf of the Islamic State, a terror organization. Both men were sentenced to time in prison and will be deported after serving their sentences.
But rather than charge Zada in the criminal justice system, leaders at the Justice Department launched first-of-their kind civil proceedings. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court allows the government to use a lower standard of proof to remove someone from American soil than in a criminal proceeding, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Congress created the court to make it easier for the DOJ to use classified evidence to deport people.
Federal agents arrested Zada earlier this week and she will remain in custody for now. Zada interjected at the start of the hearing, interrupting the courtroom clerk; her remarks were not translated. She said little else during the 40-minute proceeding, which she listened to with the help of a pair of interpreters.
Her court-appointed public defenders signaled they will challenge the legality of the untested court and its procedures.
"This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional," said public defender Matthew Farley. "The lack of process and due process provided to the respondent in these proceedings is woefully inadequate."
Judge Ericksen, who normally serves as a judge in the Minnesota district court, said the infrastructure for the new court is still coming into focus. She told an audience filled with government workers and reporters that it at times may seem "inelegant." Court officials have built a web site for the institution, which has been dormant for three decades, and are working on an electronic filing system where people can find relevant court papers.
"The court's committed to exactness, carefulness, circumspection and fealty to the Constitution and the rule of law," Judge Ericksen said.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the government application before it went to the judge earlier this month.
"The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day," Blanche said in a statement.
"The Department's application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America."
Copyright 2026 NPR
