The Justice Department activated a federal court that sat dormant for three decades to seek deportation of a 47-year-old Afghan national it calls the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family that plotted a mass shooting on Election Day 2024.

Nazira Haji Zada appeared Thursday before Alien Terrorist Removal Court Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen in Washington, D.C., after federal agents arrested her in late July. The hearing marked the first time the government has ever brought a case in the specialized tribunal, which Congress created in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Her attorney asked the judge to dismiss the case. Ericksen refused.

The ATRC, a five-judge panel whose members serve five-year terms, was designed for a narrow purpose: removing foreign nationals the government considers terrorists without forcing prosecutors to reveal classified intelligence in open immigration proceedings. For thirty years, no administration used it. The Trump Justice Department just changed that.

Two AK-47s, 500 rounds, and one-way tickets to Kabul

The family's alleged plot did not stay in the planning stage. Haji Zada's son-in-law, 28-year-old Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, and her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, 17 at the time, were arrested in October 2024 for purchasing firearms and ammunition from an undercover FBI worker. The Daily Caller reported that Tawhedi later admitted to buying two AK-47 rifles, 500 rounds of ammunition, and 10 magazines for a planned mass-casualty attack targeting American voters on Election Day.

A criminal complaint affidavit cited in the DOJ's press release contained a chilling detail: Tawhedi had asked an ISIS facilitator whether 500 rounds would be enough for the shooting.

Tawhedi pleaded guilty in June 2025 to two terrorism-related crimes, including conspiring to provide resources to ISIS. Abdullah Haji Zada also pleaded guilty and received a 15-year prison sentence.

The government says Nazira Haji Zada was not a bystander. The DOJ press release laid out her alleged involvement: the family began selling furniture, computers, a mobile phone, and their two vehicles in 2024 to fund the attack. Haji Zada signed the contract to sell the family's house in Fort Worth, Texas. The family also secured one-way airplane tickets she would have used to fly to Afghanistan with the children shortly before the planned assault.

That pattern, liquidating assets, buying weapons, booking escape flights, is what Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche pointed to when he announced the filing.

Blanche said in the DOJ press release:

"The allegations in this case show the matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day. The Department's application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America."

A court built for exactly this moment sat unused for 30 years

The ATRC exists because Congress recognized a problem: standard immigration proceedings can force the government to choose between letting a dangerous foreign national stay in the country and disclosing sensitive intelligence in open court. The 1996 law created a workaround. The attorney general files a sealed application. A single judge can grant it after finding probable cause that the person has been correctly identified as an alien terrorist present in the United States. Classified evidence stays classified. The respondent receives an unclassified summary for use in mounting a defense.

No prior administration, not Bush after September 11, not Obama, not Biden, ever filed a case in the court. The previous administration's approach to noncitizen enforcement leaned in a different direction entirely.

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg framed the filing as overdue:

"The ATRC embodies the recognition that the government should not have to choose between allowing a dangerous alien to remain in the United States and disclosing sensitive classified information in a traditional removal proceeding."

Under federal law, a foreign national can be prosecuted as a terrorist for membership in a terrorist organization, endorsing terrorist activity, or intending to participate in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States. The statute, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182, the federal law governing grounds for denying entry to the country, gives the government broad authority when national security is at stake.

Judge Ericksen found probable cause and denied dismissal

Chief Judge Ericksen's order, issued earlier in the week, accepted the government's application. She wrote that there was "probable cause to believe that the Respondent has been correctly identified and is an alien terrorist present in the United States."

Ericksen acknowledged the tension between judicial independence and deference to the executive branch on national security. Her order quoted Supreme Court precedent: while "concerns of national security and foreign relations do not warrant abdication of the judicial role," courts should give "respect for the Government's conclusions" when drawing factual inferences in this area. She described the litigation as being at an "early stage of the multi-phase process" and called combating terrorism "an urgent objective of the highest order."

At Thursday's hearing, Haji Zada's attorney asked for dismissal. Ericksen denied the request. The case moves forward.

The FBI's Oklahoma City field office posted about the filing on X, calling it the first case in the ATRC and linking to the DOJ press release. The DOJ's broader push to remove foreign nationals tied to terrorism and serious crimes has accelerated in recent months.

Blanche invoked the court's original purpose

The acting attorney general tied the filing directly to congressional intent. Blanche stated:

"Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court three decades ago to remove from the United States alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place."

That line carries weight beyond this single case. For thirty years, successive administrations treated the ATRC as a relic, a statutory tool nobody reached for, even as foreign nationals with alleged terror ties moved through the immigration system. The Trump DOJ's decision to activate it sends a signal about how this administration intends to handle cases where classified intelligence and deportation intersect.

Several questions remain unanswered. The government has not disclosed what specific role Nazira Haji Zada played beyond signing the house sale and the one-way ticket arrangements. The classified evidence underlying the application has not been made public. And the specific target location for the alleged Election Day attack has not been identified in any public filing.

The broader pattern is hard to miss. A family in Fort Worth allegedly spent months liquidating everything they owned to fund a mass shooting aimed at American voters. The son and son-in-law bought assault rifles from an undercover FBI agent and asked an ISIS contact if they had enough ammunition. The mother signed away the house and booked flights out of the country. Two family members are already in prison. Now the government wants the third one gone, and it dusted off a court that had never been used to do it.

The administration has also moved on parallel fronts, including pressing foreign leaders on immigration enforcement and pursuing denaturalization cases against individuals convicted of serious offenses.

Congress built this court for a reason. It took three decades, but someone finally used it, and the facts of the case make clear why it existed in the first place.