The Trump administration has filed the first-ever case with a secretive federal court built to deport suspected terrorists, a body created in 1996 that has sat dormant for three decades.
On July 15, the Justice Department submitted a sealed, one-page application to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court seeking a removal order against an unnamed illegal immigrant suspected of terrorism. The filing marked the first time any administration has used the specialized court since Congress established it nearly 30 years ago under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Fox News Digital first reported the filing on July 16.
Legal scholars have called the ATRC a "zombie" court, a fully authorized judicial body that has never heard a single case. Now the Trump administration is putting it to work, opening a new legal front in its effort to remove noncitizens the government considers national security threats.
The sealed application contained virtually no public information. It left out the respondent's identity, the alleged conduct, and the specific statutory subsections the Justice Department invoked. Chief Judge Joan N. Erickson, a George W. Bush appointee who leads the five-judge panel, reviewed the filing and heard arguments from DOJ officials the following day.
She was not satisfied. In a written response, Erickson said the court had questions about the connection between the respondent's actions and the legal provisions the government cited:
"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 gave the Justice Department until Wednesday to submit additional documentation and a revised application. Her follow-up was pointed: she wrote that the government's initial answers "persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration." The Washington Examiner reported that Erickson had lingering questions about whether the target's conduct fits the statutory criteria for an "alien terrorist."
A Justice Department spokesperson defended the move in a statement: "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."
The filing comes months after Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the same judge who temporarily blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, pointed to the ATRC as the obvious alternative. During a March hearing on the Alien Enemies Act litigation, Boasberg told government lawyers the court was sitting right there, waiting:
"In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn't it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. So if there's a national security concern with having these hearings, whether via habeas or otherwise, you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that's what it's there for, right?"
Boasberg had not only blocked the wartime-law removals but ordered deportation flights already in the air to turn around. The administration's decision to activate the ATRC follows his suggestion almost to the letter, and sidesteps the legal obstacles he imposed. The broader activation of the dormant court represents a significant shift in how the government pursues terrorism-related deportations.
That shift matters because the ATRC operates on fundamentally different procedural ground than regular immigration courts. The court handles cases where the government says its evidence cannot be made public because disclosure would threaten national security. Instead of giving the respondent access to classified material, the government provides an unclassified summary. Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general before they reach the court.
If the court grants an application, it must hold a public hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving the individual meets the statutory definition of an alien terrorist. Rulings can be appealed through the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court, Breitbart noted in its coverage of the procedural framework.
The court's three-decade dormancy is not for lack of candidates. A 9/11 Commission staff report found that Justice Department attorneys considered 50 potential ATRC cases by 1998 and another 50 over the following two years. Every single one was rejected. Some terrorism-related cases moved forward through the regular immigration court system instead, but the ATRC itself never heard an argument, never issued a ruling, and never removed anyone.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, called that record a failure of presidential leadership. He told Fox News Digital that prior administrations were negligent for ignoring a tool Congress built specifically for this purpose:
"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."
Von Spakovsky also argued the ATRC gives the Justice Department a stronger position against what he described as judicial interference in deportation cases. "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," he said.
The administration's broader deportation campaign has been aggressive on multiple fronts. ICE arrested 10,000 people in five days during a late-June enforcement surge that marked a new peak in removals.
The political history of the ATRC carries its own irony, though not the kind either party likes to dwell on. President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996 with an explicit promise about speed and resolve:
"From now on we can quickly expel foreigners who dare to come to America and support terrorist activities."
Then-Sen. Joe Biden took the opposite view. At the time of the law's passage, Biden attacked the court's reliance on classified evidence and sealed proceedings as fundamentally incompatible with American values:
"You and me, Judge, me, the prosecutor; you, the judge, let's deport him in a secret hearing, using secret evidence. 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."
Biden's objection did not prevent the law from passing. And during his own presidency, Biden never used the ATRC either, leaving the court dormant through yet another administration. The Trump White House has taken a different approach to enforcement tools across the board, including overriding an ICE pause on traffic stops that the president called essential to the deportation mission.
The ATRC's five judges, selected by Chief Justice John Roberts, serve five-year terms. Beyond that structural detail, much about the current case remains unknown. The respondent's name has not been released. The alleged conduct has not been described publicly. The specific statutory provisions the government cited remain sealed. And whether the Justice Department met its Wednesday deadline, or what the court did with any revised filing, has not been disclosed as of the most recent reporting.
The Associated Press described the filing as a significant escalation in the administration's deportation efforts, and the court's initial pushback suggests the government will need to sharpen its legal arguments before the ATRC grants a removal hearing.
Meanwhile, the legal battles over immigration enforcement continue to multiply. The Supreme Court has loaded its upcoming docket with immigration cases that could reshape the legal landscape for years.
Congress built this court thirty years ago for exactly this kind of case. Every administration since then found a reason not to use it. If the current Justice Department can clear Judge Ericksen's bar, taxpayers will finally see whether the tool works, or whether three decades of dust was the tell all along.
