—
The Trump administration has activated a long-dormant federal court for the first time in its 30-year history to seek the deportation of an individual accused of aiding a terror plot, marking a significant escalation in the government’s use of specialized legal mechanisms for terrorism-related removals.
The Justice Department filed the first-ever application to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court on July 15, launching what the government considers a powerful new tool for removing noncitizens suspected of terrorism. The application was submitted under seal, with details kept confidential as the government cited classified information in its case against the unnamed respondent. The court held its first hearing the following day to consider whether to approve the government’s removal request.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, who presides over the specialized five-judge tribunal, expressed skepticism about the government’s initial presentation. During the July 16 hearing, she questioned whether the government had adequately established the connection between the respondent’s alleged actions and the specific terrorism-related legal provisions invoked in the application. Ericksen ordered the Justice Department to provide more detailed evidence and legal analysis by July 22, signaling that the court would not serve as a rubber stamp for government requests.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created by Congress in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act during the Clinton administration. The law established the court specifically to handle deportation cases where the government contends that publicly disclosing evidence would threaten national security. Despite existing for three decades, the court had never received an application until the Trump administration filed the historic petition this month.
The activation of the court represents a departure from standard immigration proceedings. Unlike ordinary removal hearings, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court allows the government to present classified evidence directly to judges without the typical due process protections extended to respondents. A single judge may review classified evidence privately and must determine whether an unclassified summary is sufficient for the person facing removal to prepare an adequate defense.
The statute defines an alien terrorist broadly to include noncitizens who have engaged in terrorist activity, endorsed or espoused terrorist activities, represented or belonged to terrorist groups, or received military-type training from designated terrorist organizations. The government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent meets this definition.
Legal experts have noted the controversial nature of the court’s procedures. The law explicitly allows the government to use illegally obtained evidence, a provision that has drawn criticism as potentially conflicting with constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Noncitizens may request a special attorney to review classified evidence on their behalf, but that attorney is prohibited from sharing details with their client. Undocumented immigrants receive only highly generalized summaries of the government’s case rather than access to specific evidence.
The decision to activate the court comes despite decades of disuse. According to a 9/11 Commission staff report, the Justice Department considered approximately 100 possible cases by 2000 but rejected all of them, concluding that ordinary immigration charges were sufficient. Legal analysts have suggested that the Trump administration may be pursuing an individual whose conduct involves such highly sensitive intelligence that the government is unwilling to share even redacted summaries with a defense attorney under the standard Classified Information Procedures Act used in other sensitive federal cases.
The timing of the court’s activation aligns with the Trump administration’s broader immigration enforcement agenda. The administration has aggressively pursued deportations using various legal mechanisms, including invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to target suspected gang members. That effort prompted Judge James Boasberg to suggest the Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a more appropriate forum for handling terrorism-related deportation cases involving classified information.
If the judge approves the government’s application, a public removal hearing would follow at which the respondent has the right to attend, obtain counsel, present evidence, and question witnesses. However, the respondent would still face limitations in understanding the government’s full case due to the classification restrictions.
The court’s decision in this inaugural case could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement. If the Trump administration prevails, legal scholars expect the court could become a regular tool for terrorism-related deportations involving classified evidence. Conversely, if the judge denies the application or demands more rigorous proof, it could establish that the court will demand a clear and specific legal connection to statutory terrorism provisions before permitting the government to proceed.
Legal observers have expressed mixed views on the development. Some national security experts argue the specialized court was created precisely for such sensitive cases, while civil liberties advocates worry that the court’s procedures lack adequate due process protections. The outcome of this first case will likely shape how future administrations handle some of the country’s most sensitive immigration and national security matters involving terrorism allegations.