The Justice Department has initiated the first-ever proceeding in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, seeking to deport a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident in Fort Worth, Texas, whom the government accuses of supporting the Islamic State.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed the filing in a statement, identifying the respondent as Nazira Haji Zada. "The DOJ filed an application in the ATRC," Blanche said, calling Zada "the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day" (NPR, July 30, 2026).

Congress created the ATRC in 1996 to let the Justice Department use classified evidence to deport people from U.S. soil. The court had never been used before the case launched in July 2026 — roughly 30 years after its establishment. Judge Joan Ericksen, the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, will preside over Zada's case. Her first hearing in the matter was set for Thursday, the week of July 30, 2026 (NPR, July 30, 2026).

The Justice Department published its own press release on July 30, 2026, titled "Department of Justice Files First Case in U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court" (justice.gov/news).

Zada's son and son-in-law were previously convicted on criminal charges for plotting an Election Day terror attack on behalf of ISIS. Both men were sentenced to federal prison and will be deported after serving their sentences (NPR, July 30, 2026; Justice Department).

NPR justice correspondent Carrie Johnson broke the story, published July 30, 2026, at 8:10 a.m. CDT. NPR member station WSIU in Illinois syndicated the report under the byline "Alien Terrorist Removal Court to Hold Its First-Ever Hearing After 30 Years" (WSIU, July 30, 2026). NPR-affiliated station WABE in Atlanta had previously reported on the court's activation under the headline "Justice Department activates untested court for alien terrorist deportations" (WABE, July 19, 2026).

The ATRC's statutory framework allows the government to present classified information in a closed proceeding, an architecture designed for scenarios where disclosing evidence publicly would compromise intelligence sources or methods. The court operates separately from the criminal justice system, which requires discovery and adversarial testing of evidence under constitutional protections that do not apply in the same form to civil removal proceedings.

What bears watching is how Judge Ericksen handles the procedural and due-process questions that naturally arise in a court with zero precedent. The ATRC statute has never been interpreted through an actual case, meaning every ruling the court issues on evidence, disclosure, and respondent rights will function as first-impression law. For immigration and national security practitioners, the Zada proceeding is the first real test of whether a 1996-era statutory mechanism can accommodate the classified-evidence deportation framework Congress designed it for.

The Justice Department's choice to invoke the ATRC now — rather than relying on standard immigration removal proceedings or a criminal prosecution — signals an intent to use classified material that the government would not or could not declassify for a conventional court. Whether that approach survives legal challenge, and whether Zada's defense team contests the court's authority or procedures, will shape whatever precedent emerges from a court that has waited three decades for its first case.