The Justice Department has activated a dormant federal court for the first time in three decades to seek the deportation of a 47-year-old Afghan woman accused of helping her family plan an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on Election Day 2024, a case officials say proves terrorists have no place in the United States.
Nazira Haji Zada stood before Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen in Washington, D.C., on Thursday after the Department of Justice filed its first-ever case in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a specialized federal body Congress created in 1996 but never used until now. The government alleges Haji Zada, a Fort Worth, Texas, resident, played a direct role in a scheme to carry out a firearms attack against American voters, a plot that her own son and son-in-law have already pleaded guilty to advancing.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the filing as the fulfillment of a 30-year-old congressional mandate. The ATRC, established under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, was designed to let the government remove foreign nationals linked to terrorism without exposing classified intelligence in open immigration proceedings. For three decades, no administration used it. Now the DOJ has.
The underlying plot reads like a case study in how a family unit can become a terror cell. Haji Zada's son-in-law, 28-year-old Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, and her son Abdullah Haji Zada, who was 17 at the time, were arrested in October 2024 after buying two AK-47 rifles, 500 rounds of ammunition, and 10 magazines from an undercover FBI worker. A criminal complaint affidavit cited in the DOJ's announcement states that Tawhedi 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 pleaded guilty separately and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.
The family's preparations went beyond weapons. The government says the household sold furniture, computers, a mobile phone, and two vehicles to fund the attack. Nazira Haji Zada herself signed the contract selling the family house. One-way airplane tickets were secured for her and the children to fly to Afghanistan shortly before the planned assault, a detail that suggests the family intended to flee the country after the attack was carried out.
That pattern, liquidate assets, arm up, buy escape tickets, is what the DOJ now characterizes as evidence of Haji Zada's direct participation, not passive knowledge.
Acting Attorney General Blanche did not hold back in the DOJ's press release announcing the filing:
"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."
Blanche also pointed to the long dormancy of the court itself as evidence of missed opportunities. The Justice Department has moved aggressively in recent months to strip protections from individuals with terrorist ties, and the ATRC filing fits that broader enforcement posture.
In a separate statement, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg explained the court's purpose:
"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."
That trade-off, national security versus due process transparency, is the entire reason the ATRC exists. Under its rules, the attorney general submits a sealed application. A single judge can grant it if the alien has been correctly identified and if standard removal proceedings would risk exposing classified material. A public hearing follows, but the government provides only an unclassified summary for the defense. Classified information stays sealed.
Chief Judge Ericksen's order, filed under case number 2026-TRC-1, found "probable cause to believe that the Respondent has been correctly identified and is an alien terrorist present in the United States." The judge acknowledged the limits of judicial review in national security cases, writing that while Supreme Court precedents "make clear that 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.
Ericksen also noted that the litigation remains at an "early stage of the multi-phase process" and described combating terrorism as "an urgent objective of the highest order."
At Thursday's hearing, Haji Zada's attorney moved to dismiss the case. Ericksen denied the request. The arguments the defense raised were not detailed in available reporting. The activation of the ATRC itself is a legal milestone, no previous administration, including those that governed during the post-9/11 era, ever brought a case before the court.
Congress established the ATRC as part of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The court is composed of five judges appointed by the chief justice, each serving five-year terms. Its entire design revolves around one problem: how to deport a foreign national linked to terrorism when the evidence proving the link is classified.
For three decades, the court collected dust. Administrations of both parties chose other legal channels, criminal prosecution, standard immigration proceedings, or military detention, rather than test the ATRC's untried procedures. The fact that it took an alleged ISIS-inspired Election Day plot to finally prompt a filing raises an obvious question: how many cases over the past 30 years might have warranted the same treatment?
The DOJ's willingness to use the court now fits a broader pattern of immigration enforcement that has included large-scale fines against illegal immigrants who defy removal orders and aggressive action by ICE against foreign nationals with criminal records.
Haji Zada was arrested in late July 2026. The FBI's Oklahoma City field office posted about the case on X, calling it a "#HappeningNow" event and linking to the DOJ press release. The post confirmed the filing targeted Haji Zada "for her role in a plot to commit an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024."
Several questions remain unanswered. Tawhedi's sentence following his June 2025 guilty plea has not been reported. The precise nature of Nazira Haji Zada's alleged involvement, beyond signing the house sale and securing the escape flights, has not been publicly detailed. Her immigration status at the time of arrest is also unclear. And the defense arguments that Ericksen rejected at Thursday's hearing have not been made public.
The case also arrives amid a broader DOJ push to remove foreign nationals tied to serious crimes, including violent offenses and fraud. The government's message is consistent: people who exploit the immigration system to plan attacks on American soil will face every available legal tool.
What happened in Fort Worth was not a lone-wolf scenario. It was, if the government's allegations hold, a family operation, weapons purchased, assets liquidated, escape flights booked, and an ISIS contact consulted on ammunition. The deportation and removal of individuals who abuse their presence in this country is not a policy debate. It is the bare minimum a government owes the citizens it exists to protect.
Congress built this court in 1996. It took 30 years and an alleged plot to shoot American voters on Election Day for someone to finally walk through the door.
