A federal court created in 1996 has finally heard its first case, and the novelty is not a historical footnote. It is the central constitutional problem.
The Justice Department is asking the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to deport Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident from Fort Worth. The government alleges that she supported Islamic State ideology and concealed a family plot for an Election Day attack in 2024. Her son and son-in-law were convicted in related criminal cases. Haji Zada has not been criminally charged, and her lawyer disputes the allegations and the constitutionality of the process.
Congress designed the court to let the government use classified evidence when ordinary immigration proceedings might reveal national-security information. The statute provides for federal judges designated by the chief justice, counsel for the respondent and an unclassified summary of classified evidence under specified conditions. It also uses a civil removal framework rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
That structure creates the first due-process question: can a respondent meaningfully answer evidence she cannot see? A summary may protect intelligence sources, but it must still disclose enough substance for counsel to challenge reliability, context and inference. If the government’s case depends on a confidential source, the court must test credibility without turning secrecy into an automatic presumption of accuracy.
The second question is review. With no prior cases, there is no developed body of decisions explaining how the statute’s safeguards work in practice. The court should place as much of its reasoning as possible on the public docket, identify which issues remain sealed and provide a clear route for appellate challenge. National security can justify confidentiality; it cannot erase judicial explanation.
The allegations are grave. A government has a legitimate duty to remove noncitizens who qualify as terrorists under the law and to protect sensitive intelligence. A lawful permanent resident also has constitutional interests that cannot be reduced to guilt by association. The court’s job is to hold both realities at once.
This case will set the first operational precedent for a tribunal that has existed for three decades only on paper. The measure of the court will not be whether it favors the government or the respondent. It will be whether adversarial testing, reasoned rulings and review remain meaningful when the most important evidence is classified.
Because this first proceeding will guide later cases, procedural shortcuts would have an effect far beyond one respondent. The government, defense and judge should build a record that a reviewing court can understand. Novelty increases the obligation to explain; it does not reduce it.