The Trump administration has activated a legal mechanism that had sat dormant for nearly three decades: the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. Its first target is a Texas woman who faces no criminal charges, yet could be deported based on classified evidence her lawyer cannot see. Main Developments Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has invoked the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time since its creation in 1996. The court convened Thursday to hear the case of Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old legal permanent resident living in Fort Worth, Texas. Government lawyers allege Zada participated in a shooting plot her sons planned for election day 2024. Both sons, Tawhedi and Abdullah Haji Zada, were arrested that October and have pleaded guilty; Abdullah is serving 15 years, while Tawhedi awaits sentencing. Read also: 4 Phases to Peace: Trump's Board of Peace Claims Hamas Disarmament Deal The FBI claims it disrupted the plot when the two men tried to buy two rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition from an undercover agent. Zada herself has not been charged with any crime. During the hearing, Judge Joan Ericksen declined a motion from Zada's public defender, Matthew Farley, to dismiss the case immediately. Ericksen clarified that the proceeding is civil, not criminal, and arises under immigration law. Background Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 as a specialized venue to deport non-citizens accused of terrorist activity. Despite being on the books for 30 years, no administration had ever convened it — until now. The court comprises five judges appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Its legal framework has long been controversial, with critics arguing it bypasses standard due process protections afforded to both citizens and legal residents. Justice Department lawyers told the court that the case against Zada relies on classified information that cannot be disclosed to the public or her legal team. An FBI memo dated July 15 asserts that releasing the evidence would allow terrorists to avoid detection and compromise intelligence sources. Why It Matters Activating this obscure court represents a significant shift in deportation strategy. Critics, including Farley, argue the administration is using it to circumvent normal legal safeguards and accelerate mass deportations without criminal convictions. The case raises fundamental questions about due process when the government relies on secret evidence. Courts typically have procedures to handle classified materials while still protecting a defendant's rights, but the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is still establishing its own infrastructure. Blanche defended the move, stating that Congress created the court specifically to remove "alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place." The administration's decision to test this untried legal avenue signals a willingness to push boundaries in immigration enforcement. What's Next Judge Ericksen has not set a timeline for further proceedings, and the court acknowledged it is still building its operational framework. Farley's motion to dismiss was denied, but the legal fight over the constitutionality of the process is expected to continue. The Justice Department must now present its classified evidence to the court in a manner that satisfies both national security concerns and judicial review. The outcome could set a precedent for how future cases are handled under this long-dormant statute.