The Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC)  on Friday ordered the removal of an Afghan woman in its first-ever use, after she had reached an agreement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ). Nazira Haji Zada had been accused of assisting her son and son-in-law in planning a foiled 2024 terror plot and had conceded that she was an alien terrorist.

Congress created the ATRC through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which was one of the responses to the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing in 1995. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the ATRC is a specialized court for deporting immigrants suspected of engaging in terrorist activities.

Congress did this because it was concerned that standard deportation procedures would not conceal classified evidence. Congress further tightened protections for classified evidence by limiting immigrants’ access to the government’s evidence against them in a omnibus consolidated appropriations act, Public Law 104–208, in September 1996.

Nazira Haji Zada’s deportation was the first use of the ATRC in its 30 years of existence, so the court is still developing its procedures. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court selects the five judges from five different judicial circuits. All of the judges are federal trial court judges who also serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

A case reaches the ATRC in two steps. In the first, DOJ applies by showing probable cause that a person is engaged in “terrorist activity” as defined Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The definition is broad and flexible, in that it can include children and spouses and can include providing any kind of transportation or housing. A “terrorist organization” is defined as any group of two or more people that have used a weapon or vehicle to damage property. In the second step, an application may reach a removal hearing, which uses a higher evidentiary standard and in which the immigrant may challenge the allegation.

However, the court provides immigrants with substantially fewer protections than defendants in regular criminal cases. The standard of proof is only a “preponderance of the evidence” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at ATRC, and defendants may not object to “the fruits of electronic surveillance and unconsented physical searches.” A single judge hears the case and there is no right to trial by jury.

An immigrant would not have the right to confront all of the evidence and the DOJ does not have to disclose or even summarize the classified evidence against an immigrant. However, the Brennan Center notes that this restriction has not been widely tested, and that some courts have held that secret evidence may not be used to justify immigrant detentions.

In a press release, Attorney General Todd Blanche called the case, “a win for national security and the rule of law.”