The Justice Department has launched the first case ever filed 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 — material too sensitive to reveal in open court — to deport people from U.S. soil. The court had never been used before this case was launched in July 2026, roughly 30 years after its creation. Judge Joan Ericksen, the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, will preside. 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 rules allow the government to present classified information in a closed proceeding. The court operates separately from the criminal justice system, where the Constitution requires the government to share evidence with the defense and allow it to be challenged in open court. Civil removal proceedings — the system that handles deportations — do not carry those same constitutional protections, giving the government more latitude to rely on intelligence it does not want to declassify.

The broader question is how Judge Ericksen handles the procedural and due-process issues that naturally arise in a court with no prior rulings to guide her. The ATRC statute has never been interpreted through an actual case, so every ruling the court issues on evidence, disclosure, and the respondent's rights will set first-of-their-kind legal precedent. For immigration and national security lawyers, the Zada proceeding is the first real test of whether a 1996-era statute can function as Congress intended — handling deportations that hinge on classified material.

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