The United States Department of Justice has held its first-ever court proceeding using the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, marking the first time the specialized judicial body has been activated since Congress created it in 1996.
Justice Department Activates Dormant Alien Terrorist Removal Court for First Time
The civil proceeding targets Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident who resides in Fort Worth, Texas. Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, who normally serves as a federal judge in Minnesota, presided over the 40-minute proceeding. Judge Ericksen noted that Nazira was the “first case” to appear before the tribunal, which had laid dormant for three decades.
The Case and Government Allegations
Federal authorities arrested Nazira earlier in the week, and she will remain in custody for now. Prosecutors detailed that the government is utilizing the court to deport Nazira due to her alleged ties to the Islamic State. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the government application before it went to the judge earlier in the month, defending the unprecedented legal move in a public statement.
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,
Blanche said in a statement, adding that the department’s application makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States.
According to the Justice Department, Nazira landed on the government’s radar because her son and son-in-law were convicted of conspiring to launch an ISIS-inspired attack. Both men were previously prosecuted in the criminal justice system, receiving prison sentences and facing deportation after serving their time. Prosecutor Hayden O’Byrne stated that the U.S. is alleging Nazira is an alien terrorist and possesses classified evidence to prove the claim.
Legal Framework and Constitutional Challenges
Congress originally designed the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to streamline the removal of individuals deemed to be terrorists and to allow the government to rely on classified evidence. Unlike criminal proceedings that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court permits the government to use a lower standard of proof to remove someone from American soil.
During the Thursday hearing, Nazira was flanked by translators and her court-appointed public defenders, Matthew Farley and Mary Petras of the federal public defender’s office. Defense attorneys immediately attacked the government’s approach.
This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,
Farley said, characterizing the civil action as a run-around of bringing a criminal case and arguing that the process violates rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
Court Infrastructure and Future Implications
Judge Ericksen acknowledged during the hearing that the operational infrastructure for the court is still coming into focus and may at times seem ininelegant. Court officials have built a website for the institution and are working on an electronic filing system to host relevant court papers.
The court’s committed to exactness, carefulness, circumspection and fealty to the Constitution and the rule of law,
Judge Ericksen said to an audience of government workers and reporters.
While Justice Department officials have not explicitly confirmed whether additional cases will immediately follow, a department spokesperson emphasized that the agency intends to use every available tool to remove alien terrorists from the United States.
