WASHINGTON — A specialized federal court that remained dormant for three decades held its first public hearing Thursday as the Trump administration sought to deport an Afghan lawful permanent resident accused of supporting relatives who planned an ISIS-inspired attack around the 2024 presidential election.

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, appeared before Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court after federal agents arrested her at her Fort Worth, Texas, home earlier in the week. Zada has not been charged with a crime. The Justice Department is instead pursuing her removal through a rarely tested section of federal immigration law that permits the government to present classified national-security information to a specially designated federal judge.

Zada’s appointed public defenders asked Ericksen to dismiss the proceeding and order her immediate release, arguing that the government’s public disclosures were too limited for Zada to understand and answer the allegations against her. Assistant Federal Public Defender Matthew Farley described the case as an attempt to bypass traditional criminal proceedings and said the removal process violated constitutional due-process protections.

Ericksen denied the requests during the initial hearing but said Zada’s lawyers could renew their arguments as the case develops. A written order issued after the hearing said Zada would remain detained at the District of Columbia Jail’s Correctional Treatment Facility. The court tentatively scheduled a hearing on her possible release for Aug. 11.

The judge also appointed lawyers from the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the District of Columbia after confirming that Zada believed she was a lawful permanent resident and did not have an attorney. Interpreters assisted Zada during the proceeding. Ericksen emphasized that the case was a civil immigration matter rather than a criminal prosecution.

The Justice Department alleges that Zada supported a plan by her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, to carry out a mass-casualty shooting on or around Election Day in November 2024. Officials say the two men attempted to obtain rifles and ammunition from an undercover FBI employee before being arrested in October 2024.

Abdullah Haji Zada, who was 17 when arrested, pleaded guilty as an adult and was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. His plea agreement included a judicial removal order requiring him to leave the United States for Afghanistan after completing his sentence. Tawhedi pleaded guilty in June 2025 to terrorism-related offenses, including attempting to provide material support to ISIS and attempting to obtain firearms for a federal crime of terrorism. He is awaiting sentencing.

The government says its investigation produced information indicating that Nazira Haji Zada supported ISIS, encouraged family members to embrace the organization’s ideology and assisted the broader family effort surrounding the planned attack. Federal filings also point to the sale of family property and the purchase of one-way airline tickets to Afghanistan before the intended attack date. Those assertions remain government allegations and have not been tested at a final removal hearing.

An unclassified Immigration and Customs Enforcement declaration states that Zada entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in March 2018 through a derivative immigrant visa connected to her husband. The filing says her husband worked at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2016. The circumstances underscore the unusual nature of the case: the government is attempting to strip the permanent status of a person admitted through a visa category tied to service on behalf of the United States.

The Justice Department submitted its application to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court on July 15. Ericksen initially questioned whether the government had adequately connected Zada’s alleged conduct to the statutory provisions it invoked and directed prosecutors to supplement the record. After reviewing additional classified material, the judge issued a July 27 order finding probable cause to allow the application to proceed.

That ruling did not order Zada’s deportation. It concluded only that the government had met the preliminary threshold required to initiate a full removal case. Ericksen wrote that the record supplied probable cause to believe Zada had been correctly identified, met the statutory definition of an “alien terrorist” and could not be handled through ordinary removal procedures without creating a risk to national security.

Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court consists of five federal district judges selected by the chief justice of the United States from different judicial circuits. Its procedures were designed for cases in which the government believes disclosing intelligence in an ordinary immigration court could compromise sources, investigative methods or national security.

Once an application is approved, the law requires a public removal hearing. The respondent has a right to counsel, and the government bears the burden of proving that the person qualifies for removal under the statute. Classified material may be reviewed privately by the judge, but the government must provide an unclassified summary that is sufficient for the respondent to prepare a defense. Either side may ultimately appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

That division between secret evidence and a public summary is expected to be central to Zada’s defense. Farley argued that the government’s unclassified description consisted of only a few paragraphs and did not give Zada a meaningful opportunity to challenge the case. Her attorneys invoked the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments and characterized the proceeding as an unconstitutional substitute for a criminal prosecution.

Government lawyers responded that broader disclosure could reveal information useful to terrorist organizations seeking to evade detection. Justice Department attorney Hayden O’Byrne presented an oral, unclassified description of the allegations during the hearing while noting that significant portions of the investigation remain classified.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the case demonstrated why Congress created the court, arguing that officials should not have to choose between disclosing sensitive intelligence and allowing a person they consider dangerous to remain in the country. FBI Director Kash Patel called the proceeding a historic use of national-security authorities.

The case now moves into legally uncharted territory. With no previous decisions from the court addressing a contested removal, Ericksen and the parties must establish practical rules for discovery, classified information, detention and constitutional challenges as they proceed. The court has already entered a protective order governing evidence, and further disputes over what Zada and her attorneys may review are likely.

A final ruling against Zada could provide the administration with a model for other national-security deportation cases involving classified intelligence. A dismissal or appellate reversal could sharply restrict the court’s usefulness and reinforce the due-process concerns that helped leave it unused for 30 years. For now, Zada remains detained without criminal charges while the first proceeding of its kind advances in Washington.