The Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) has issued its first-ever deportation order, targeting Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan woman accused of helping her son and son-in-law plan a thwarted terror plot in 2024. This decision followed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), where she acknowledged being an alien terrorist. The ATRC was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a legislative response to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, designed to handle cases involving immigrants suspected of terrorism without exposing classified evidence.
As articulated by the Brennan Center for Justice, the ATRC is a specialized court with procedures distinct from standard deportation processes. These procedures aim to safeguard classified information while adjudicating cases of alleged terrorist activities by immigrants. Public Law 104–208, enacted in September 1996, further constrained immigrants’ access to evidence, addressing congressional concerns about protecting sensitive information.
This landmark case underscores the challenges inherent in using the ATRC. Consequently, the ATRC remains in a nascent stage of procedural development, largely due to the unprecedented use in nearly three decades of its existence. The court’s judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, are federal trial court judges who also serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, ensuring a judicial body with expertise in national security issues.
The procedural pathway to the ATRC involves a two-step process. Initially, the DOJ must demonstrate probable cause that the individual is involved in “terrorist activity” as defined under Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This broad definition even encompasses providing any type of logistical support. The case then moves to a removal hearing, where a higher evidentiary standard is applied, allowing the accused to contest the allegations. Despite this, the standard of proof required is only a “preponderance of the evidence,” in stark contrast to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in typical criminal cases.
Importantly, the Federal Rules of Evidence are not applicable in the ATRC, and those facing accusations cannot object to evidence derived from electronic surveillance or searches conducted without consent. Furthermore, there is no opportunity for a jury trial, and only a single judge oversees the case. Immigrants have restricted rights to see or challenge the classified evidence against them, although this restriction on secret evidence has not been extensively tested in court. Nonetheless, some judicial rulings have indicated that secret evidence cannot justify immigrant detentions, raising potential future challenges.
Attorney General Todd Blanche emphasized that this case represents a significant step for national security and the legal system. For further details on this decision, [JURIST](https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/09/secret-court-orders-deportation-of-afghan-woman-accused-of-terrorism/) reports on the implications of the order.
The use of the ATRC in this context not only highlights its role in national security but also beckons a closer examination of the balance between security and civil liberties in immigration and anti-terrorism policies.