The Justice Department has moved to use the seldom-used Alien Terrorist Removal Court to deport an unnamed noncitizen accused of terrorism, reviving a legal tool that sat dormant for decades. The filing is the first application to the ATRC since Congress created the court in 1996, and it arrives amid fights over how the government handles national security removals. A sealed, one-page application produced immediate questions from the court, while supporters argue the move restores a legitimate, powerful option for protecting the country.
The July 15 filing with the Alien Terrorist Removal Court marks a historic first: the government is attempting to invoke a specialized process that allows removal using classified evidence not revealed in open court. That sealed process is intended to shield sensitive intelligence while still giving the government a path to remove dangerous foreign nationals who threaten the United States. The ATRC has never actually heard a case in its nearly 30-year existence, so this step carries legal and political weight.
“This Department of Justice will use every tool available to bring alien terrorists to justice and remove them from the United States, including by use of this court established by Congress in 1996,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement. The ATRC procedure lets officials rely on classified filings while providing an unclassified summary to respondents, balancing secrecy and due process in national security matters. That balance is exactly why Republican defenders say the court should be put to work now.
Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., has already suggested the court as an alternative to other routes in terrorism-related deportation fights. “In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” Boasberg said during a March hearing. His remarks came as judges and the administration sparred over when wartime statutes like the Alien Enemies Act apply.
Boasberg’s comments followed a contentious episode in which he temporarily blocked the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and ordered deportation flights already underway to return. That order ignited a high-profile legal standoff between the executive branch and federal courts, highlighting the friction over how to remove dangerous noncitizens. The ATRC now appears to be a deliberate move to reduce courtroom friction on national security grounds.
The initial application submitted to the ATRC was one page and sealed, leaving out the person’s identity, the specific alleged acts, and the precise statutory subsections invoked. ATRC Chief Judge Joan N. Erickson, appointed by President George W. Bush, pushed back and requested more detail before proceeding. “The Court had questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions,” Erickson wrote. “The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration.” Erickson gave the Justice Department a deadline to supply additional documentation.
Supporters of the move like Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, say the government is finally using a tool Congress provided and that prior administrations were negligent in letting the court sit idle. “I think it is a sign of negligence, frankly, of prior presidents that they did not use this special court, this special procedure that was specifically set up by Congress, so that they could quickly get aliens — aliens who were either terrorists or supported terrorist activities — out of the U.S.” he said. That view frames the ATRC as a commonsense, legally grounded option to remove threats without exposing intelligence sources.
Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a post-1995 law aimed at strengthening national security tools. “From now on we can quickly expel foreigners who dare to come to America and support terrorist activities,” Clinton said at the bill’s signing. The statute envisioned a narrow, secure process for cases where public disclosure of evidence would harm national security interests.
The court is composed of five federal district judges named to staggered five-year terms and built specifically to hear terrorism-related deportation matters where evidence must remain classified. In cases before the ATRC the government supplies an unclassified summary to the respondent instead of disclosing the underlying classified material. That design was meant to allow removal when secrecy is essential while still giving judges a structured way to weigh the evidence.
Historical records show the Justice Department once considered dozens of cases for the ATRC but ultimately declined to pursue them through this forum. According to the 9/11 Commission staff report, DOJ attorneys considered 50 cases by 1998 and another 50 over the next two years, but every one was rejected and some cases proceeded through ordinary immigration courts. The reluctance of past administrations to use the ATRC is cited by advocates who now argue the court should be part of the toolkit for serious national security removals.
At the time of the law’s passage, then Sen. Joe Biden voiced a hard critique of secret proceedings. “You and me, Judge — me, the prosecutor; you, the judge — let’s deport him in a secret hearing, using secret evidence,” Biden said. “We know you did it, and we can’t tell you how we know. Now I think that is about as un-American as it gets.” That historic objection remains part of the debate about secrecy and fairness in ATRC proceedings.
The Justice Department’s decision to press the ATRC route comes as the administration faces repeated judicial pushback on immigration policies, and advocates say the court can avoid some of that resistance. “I think this court is a much stronger tool the Justice Department can use, and it’s going to make it much tougher for what I consider to be rogue judges to interfere with, and hopefully prevent, the removal of immigrants,” von Spakovsky said, framing the ATRC as an institutional fix to judicial obstruction.
