—
The Trump administration has activated a secretive and dormant court created three decades ago to consider deportations of individuals deemed “alien terrorists,” marking the first time the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has received an application since its establishment in 1996.
The Justice Department submitted its initial petition to the specialized court on July 15, seeking the removal of an unidentified foreign national. The details of the application remain sealed, and the accompanying documentation indicates the contents are classified. The identity of the individual and any underlying evidence remain confidential.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen held a sealed hearing on the matter Thursday before issuing an order asking the Justice Department to provide more detailed information. “The government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” Ericksen wrote in her one-page order. She noted that the court had questions about how the government’s allegations against the individual connect to the legal standards for designating someone an “alien terrorist.” The Justice Department has until Wednesday to file a revised application.
The activation of this court represents another tool in the Trump administration’s aggressive push to expand its deportation authority. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, legislation passed in response to national security concerns. Congress created the specialized court to provide a process for government requests to deport individuals the administration claims pose terrorism-related threats while protecting classified information that could jeopardize national security operations.
The court consists of five federal judges selected by the Chief Justice of the United States. Under the law, applications to remove an “alien terrorist” must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general—in this case, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—and must include a sworn statement explaining the designation and certifying that the individual’s presence threatens national security. If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing where the government bears the burden of proving that the individual qualifies as an “alien terrorist.”
Federal law defines the term broadly. An individual could be designated as an “alien terrorist” by engaging in terrorist activity, endorsing or espousing terrorist activities, or belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorism. The criteria also extend to family members of those designated as alien terrorists, and includes a catch-all provision allowing the secretary of state to label someone an “alien terrorist” who intends to engage in activities that could endanger U.S. safety or security.
The thirty-year dormancy of this court reflects long-standing legal concerns about its procedures. Many legal scholars have questioned whether the court’s processes—which allow the government to present classified evidence that defendants may never fully see—provide sufficient constitutional due process protections. Critics argue that limiting access to classified evidence makes it difficult for individuals to meaningfully challenge the government’s case.
The court’s activation comes as context for an earlier legal struggle that highlighted its existence. Last year, the Trump administration attempted to deport more than 100 Venezuelan nationals it labeled members of Tren de Aragua, a transnational gang the administration designated as a terrorist organization. The administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to bypass traditional immigration proceedings. During litigation over those deportations, federal Judge James Boasberg suggested the Alien Terrorist Removal Court was the appropriate forum for such cases. “In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” Boasberg said during a hearing. “So if there’s a national security concern with having these hearings…you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that’s what it’s there for, right?”
The Trump administration’s attorney countered that the existence of the court did not prevent the president from using other statutory authorities, such as the Alien Enemies Act. However, courts subsequently blocked the administration’s use of that law for the Venezuelan deportations, finding that immigration alone does not constitute the type of invasion or predatory incursion required to invoke the wartime statute.
The current case marks an unprecedented shift in strategy. Rather than attempting controversial workarounds, the administration is directly engaging the existing legal framework Congress created for such cases. The court’s five judges are led by Ericksen, a Minnesota-based federal judge appointed by George W. Bush. The other judges include Timothy DeGiusti of Oklahoma, Karin Immergut of Oregon, Kenneth Karas of New York, and Sara Lioi of Ohio.
The outcome of this first-ever case could establish significant precedent for future national security deportation cases, further defining the balance between executive immigration powers, the use of classified evidence in immigration proceedings, and judicial oversight. Legal observers note that Judge Ericksen’s skeptical initial response suggests the court will not rubber-stamp government applications, and that the judge-by-judge review process means the court is unlikely to become a mechanism for large-scale removals despite the administration’s broader deportation agenda.
The case was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site tracking federal courts, and became public through the posting of court documents on a newly created website for the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
