The Trump administration filed the first-ever petition to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court this month, activating a 30-year-old deportation tribunal that had sat dormant since its creation in 1996. The Justice Department’s application, submitted Wednesday, seeks removal of an unnamed noncitizen on national security grounds—a move that marks the first time the secretive court has been used for its intended purpose.
Chief Judge Joan Ericksen, a federal judge from Minnesota overseeing the case, indicated skepticism about the government’s initial arguments during a hearing on Thursday. She questioned the connection between the respondent’s alleged actions and the specific sections of anti-terrorism law the Justice Department invoked, ordering the administration to submit more detailed information and legal analysis by Wednesday.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed in response to terrorism concerns. Congress designed the five-judge court to handle deportation cases where ordinary immigration proceedings could expose classified information and threaten national security. The court permits the attorney general to file applications under seal, keeping much of the evidence secret from the person facing removal.
For three decades, no administration attempted to use the court. The Justice Department considered roughly 100 possible cases by 2000 and rejected all of them, according to a 9/11 Commission staff report, finding that ordinary immigration charges were sufficient. Legal experts attributed the court’s disuse partly to concerns about its controversial procedures—the law allows the government to present evidence in camera and ex parte, meaning only the judge sees the full case while the respondent receives limited information or generalized summaries.
The Trump administration’s shift came after a federal judge suggested the path during separate litigation. In 2025, Washington DC federal judge James Boasberg was presiding over cases in which the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to deport Venezuelan migrants officials accused of belonging to a terrorist gang. During that hearing, Boasberg indicated the ATRC would be the natural forum for national security-based removals. “Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” he said. “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 court’s procedures differ sharply from standard immigration proceedings. The law requires cases to move “as expeditiously as practicable,” forecloses asylum claims and other standard defenses, and mandates appeals be filed within 20 days of a ruling—much faster than typical deportation appeals. However, legal experts note the court is unlikely to become a mass-deportation tool. Each case requires approval by the attorney general or deputy attorney general and must go through a full hearing before the five Article III judges, who are more independent arbiters than the executive-branch immigration judges who typically preside over deportations.
The procedures have long raised constitutional questions. Legal scholars have debated whether the court’s secrecy provisions violate Fifth Amendment due process protections. Lawful permanent residents can request a special attorney to review classified evidence on their behalf, but that attorney cannot share details with their client. Undocumented immigrants receive only highly generalized summaries of the government’s case, and the statute explicitly permits the use of illegally obtained evidence—a provision in tension with Fourth Amendment protections.
CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck compared the Trump administration’s move to testing the fences in the movie “Jurassic Park.” If the government loses, one person can be placed in standard removal proceedings; if it wins, the precedent could reshape deportation law. Andrew Arthur, who oversaw terrorism cases at the Justice Department’s Immigration and Naturalization Service in the late 1990s and early 2000s, noted that the ATRC “was the absolute last court of choice” during his tenure and speculated the Trump administration is either pursuing an individual whose actions cannot be disclosed in open court or seeking to establish the ATRC as a faster alternative tribunal.
Sources
- The Guardian — Trump administration’s first petition to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, Judge Ericksen’s response, and Boasberg’s 2025 remarks suggesting the court
- Axios — Details on the court’s procedures, the two-stage process, and historical context of the DOJ considering 100 cases by 2000
- CNN — Comprehensive explanation of the court’s constitutional questions, procedures, judge assignments, and expert analysis from Vladeck and Arthur
- PBS News — Confirmation of the July 2026 filing, Judge Ericksen’s order, and Boasberg’s remarks during the Alien Enemies Act litigation
