A rarely used federal immigration court established to handle terrorism-related deportation cases is facing its first constitutional challenge after the Trump administration invoked the Alien Terrorist Removal Act process against an Afghan legal permanent resident. The case could determine whether the decades-old legal framework complies with constitutional due process protections while allowing the government to rely on classified evidence.
According to a report by CNN, attorneys representing the woman argue that the specialized deportation process violates multiple constitutional protections because it permits the government to use classified evidence that the respondent cannot fully review. The case marks the first time the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has publicly heard a case since Congress created it in 1996.
What Happened?
The constitutional challenge arose during the first public hearing before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), a specialized federal court created under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
The Justice Department is seeking the removal of Nazira Haji Zada, an Afghan legal permanent resident accused of supporting ISIS and assisting family members involved in an alleged Election Day 2024 terrorist plot. Although federal authorities have not charged Haji Zada with a criminal offense, prosecutors allege she supported extremist activities that justify her removal under the ATRC process.
During the hearing, her attorney argued that the court’s procedures violate constitutional due process because much of the government’s evidence remains classified.
Key Details
How the Alien Terrorist Removal Court Works
Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to provide a mechanism for deporting non-citizens accused of terrorism when classified intelligence cannot be publicly disclosed.
Unlike traditional immigration proceedings, the court permits the government to present classified evidence while limiting what respondents and their attorneys can access.
Supporters argue the process protects sensitive intelligence sources and national security information, while critics contend it restricts a person’s ability to challenge the government’s allegations effectively.
Defense Challenges Constitutionality
Haji Zada’s attorney argued that the statutory framework violates constitutional protections by preventing respondents from meaningfully confronting the evidence against them.
Defense attorneys contend the procedure conflicts with due process guarantees and could become the subject of extended litigation, potentially reaching federal appellate courts or the U.S. Supreme Court.
National Security and Immigration Debate
The Trump administration has increasingly emphasized national security in immigration enforcement during the president’s second term.
Justice Department officials argue the specialized court provides an important legal avenue for removing non-citizens accused of supporting terrorist organizations while safeguarding classified intelligence.
The administration recently activated the court after it remained unused for nearly three decades, reflecting a broader effort to expand available legal tools for national security-related immigration cases.
The case also comes as the administration continues pursuing broader immigration enforcement initiatives, including legal disputes surrounding Trump’s mail-in voting executive order and other federal policy challenges that have reached the courts.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Constitutional scholars say the case raises significant questions about balancing individual due process rights with national security interests.
The court’s ability to rely on classified evidence distinguishes it from ordinary immigration proceedings and could establish important legal precedent if higher courts ultimately review the statute’s constitutionality.
Federal Judge Joan Ericksen, who presides over the specialized court, denied an immediate request for Haji Zada’s release but indicated that issue could be revisited as the case proceeds.
The litigation also follows broader debates over executive authority and federal immigration enforcement that have shaped multiple legal disputes during Trump’s second term, alongside national security initiatives such as Trump’s Iran conflict strategy in the Strait of Hormuz.
What Happens Next?
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court is expected to continue hearing arguments over both the government’s allegations and the constitutional validity of the specialized removal process.
If the court upholds the government’s authority, the case could establish a modern precedent for using the long-dormant tribunal in future terrorism-related deportation proceedings. If constitutional objections prevail, the litigation may reshape how classified evidence can be used in immigration enforcement and could ultimately be decided by higher federal courts.
It established a specialized legal process allowing the government to seek the removal of non-citizens accused of terrorism using classified evidence under certain circumstances.
Attorneys argue the court’s procedures violate constitutional due process by limiting a respondent’s ability to review and challenge classified evidence used against them.