Public defenders made an early bid on Thursday to toss out the first-ever case brought in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, where the Trump administration is trying an untested strategy to remove an Afghan woman from Texas they say is linked to an ISIS plot. 

Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident, was arrested earlier this week in Texas and is accused of helping her son and son-in-law plan a mass casualty attack on behalf of ISIS during the 2024 election. Though the plot was foiled, investigators say Haji Zada pledged loyalty to ISIS and indoctrinated her family with ISIS ideology. 

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court is an obscure, specialized court created by Congress in 1996 to quickly move to deport those who are a national security threat and are currently in the United States. However, the court has lain dormant in the 30 years since it was created and has never been used before.

Most of the filings in the case are classified, with only a brief summary of the matter being made public.

Judge Joan Erickson, the court’s chief judge, initially appeared skeptical of the government’s attempt to use the court for the first time, but concluded the Justice Department had gathered enough evidence to move forward with the case.

Top Justice Department officials celebrated the inauguration of the court on Thursday, arguing it would help the government prosecute removal cases that rely on classified materials. 

FBI director Kash Patel called the proceedings “a historic step” in a DOJ 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,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said. “The Department’s application in this court makes clear that terrorists have no place in the United States of America.”

But Haji Zada’s two appointed public defenders pushed back during an initial hearing on Thursday, arguing the Trump administration’s removal effort violated Haji Zada’s due process rights. 

Though the judge rejected their bid to dismiss the case, the proceedings on Thursday provided an early indication of how Haji Zada will contest the government’s novel attempt to remove her.

Her lawyers framed the government’s use of the court as a “run around” of traditional criminal proceedings and a way to skirt due process requirements, saying the government violated Haji Zada’s First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights.

Assistant Federal Public Defender Matthew Farley, one of Haji Zada’s attorneys, argued trying to remove a legal permanent resident “based on just a few paragraphs calling the government’s unclassified filings is absolutely contrary to due process,” calling the government’s unclassified filings “woefully inadequate.”

The government has argued that further disclosure would help terrorists seeking “to avoid preventative or detection measures.”

The hearing was also a trial run for the never-before-used court.

Ericksen, admitted on Thursday that her handling of the case may be “inelegant,” acknowledging the court’s procedures are “untested” after gathering dust for 30 years. But she vowed to be “careful” and “circumspect” and promised “fealty to the Constitution.”

A date has not yet been set for Haji Zada’s removal hearing. Before then, the two parties will wade into uncharted legal waters as they debate what access to classified materials defense counsel and the public are entitled to in this court.

Ericksen indicated she would be skeptical of efforts by the government to keep documents from defense counsel, saying prosecutors would have to make a strong argument for withholding classified materials.