The Justice Department has started the first case ever in a special court called the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, or ATRC. The government wants to deport a 47-year-old woman in Fort Worth, Texas, who is accused of supporting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed the filing and identified the woman as Nazira Haji Zada. "The DOJ filed an application in the ATRC," Blanche said. He called 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 secret evidence to deport people from the United States. The court had never been used before this case was filed in July 2026 — about 30 years after it was created. Judge Joan Ericksen, the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, will oversee the case. Her first hearing 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 already convicted of criminal charges for plotting an Election Day terror attack for ISIS. Both men were sent to federal prison and will be deported after they finish their sentences (NPR, July 30, 2026; Justice Department).

NPR reporter Carrie Johnson broke the story on July 30, 2026, at 8:10 a.m. CDT. NPR member station WSIU in Illinois shared the report under the headline "Alien Terrorist Removal Court to Hold Its First-Ever Hearing After 30 Years" (WSIU, July 30, 2026). NPR station WABE in Atlanta had earlier reported on the court being activated under the headline "Justice Department activates untested court for alien terrorist deportations" (WABE, July 19, 2026).

The ATRC lets the government use classified information — meaning secret intelligence that cannot be shared publicly — in a closed hearing. This is different from a regular criminal trial, where the law requires the government to share its evidence with the defense so it can be challenged in open court. Deportation cases do not have all the same protections, which gives the government more room to use intelligence it does not want to reveal.

The bigger question is how Judge Ericksen handles the legal questions that come up in a court with no past rulings to look to. Because the ATRC has never had a case before, every decision she makes about evidence, disclosure, and Zada's rights will set new legal precedent. For lawyers who work in immigration and national security, this case is the first real test of whether the 1996 law can do what Congress designed it to do.

The Justice Department chose to use the ATRC now instead of regular immigration proceedings or a criminal trial. That choice suggests the government wants to use classified material it could not or would not declassify for a normal court. Whether that approach holds up under legal challenge, and whether Zada's lawyers fight the court's authority or rules, will shape the precedent that comes from a court that has waited 30 years for its first case.