US Activates Secret ‘Alien Terrorist’ Court for First Time in History
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen canceled a scheduled hearing regarding Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident from Afghanistan detained without charge since July 28, amid intense scrutiny over the use of classified, unchallenged evidence in immigration enforcement.
The 1996 Tribunal and the First Application Against Nazira Haji Zada
Congress established the ATRC in 1996 to handle deportation cases involving noncitizens suspected of terrorism where the government intends to rely on secret, classified evidence. Under the framework of the court, targets are denied the ability to review or challenge evidence even if it was unlawfully obtained, according to court rules. Government filings allege that Zada pledged loyalty to the Islamic State, though federal prosecutors have filed no formal criminal charges against her. Department of Justice lawyers are instead pursuing removal based on a preponderance of evidence that she qualifies as an “alien terrorist.”
Legal representation for Zada notes that only a summary of the government’s evidence has been provided to the defense. This procedural constraint revives decades-old constitutional debates regarding due process. Federal courts have repeatedly found that relying on secret evidence in removal proceedings strips defendants of meaningful opportunities to defend themselves. If the ATRC orders deportation, Zada faces removal to Afghanistan. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has explicitly cautioned against involuntary returns to Afghanistan without individualized risk assessments, citing widespread arbitrary arrests, detention, and torture by the Taliban.
Judicial Skepticism and Precedents from Past Litigation
The path to activating the dormant court has faced immediate judicial roadblocks. U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen previously instructed the Justice Department to submit a more thoughtful application after reviewing initial sealed filings. The Minneapolis-based judge pointed to lingering questions regarding how the government’s targets connect directly to statutory provisions governing the removal of alien terrorists.
The dormant status of the court drew judicial attention last year. District Judge James Boasberg noted that the existence of the ATRC suggested the executive branch could not simply bypass the judiciary when labeling individuals as terrorists. While administration attorneys defended the use of alternative authorities such as the Alien Enemies Act, the Justice Department ultimately proceeded with the historic ATRC application.
For individuals, families, and businesses suddenly caught in shifting federal enforcement policies, managing complex regulatory or legal exposure requires specialized advocacy.
Appellate Review and Broader Human Rights Implications
Statutory rules for the ATRC dictate that any appeals of a removal ruling go directly to the D.C. Crucially, ATRC judges lack the authority to grant asylum, withhold removal, or offer standard forms of relief typically available in traditional immigration courtrooms.
Legal scholars and civil liberties organizations continue to monitor the proceedings closely. As appellate courts prepare to weigh the constitutionality of secret evidence and restricted due process, navigating administrative detention remains a formidable challenge.
The activation of a three-decade-old tribunal establishes a high-stakes legal precedent for immigration enforcement and national security policy. As the D.C. Circuit prepares to evaluate the constitutional boundaries of classified evidence, the final outcome will shape federal deportation authority for years to come.