DOJ Files First Alien Terrorist Removal Court Case as Judge Questions Legal Basis
The Justice Department has activated the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time, opening a sealed national security removal case before a federal court that had sat unused since Congress created it in 1996.
The court’s website lists the case as 2026-TRC-1 and includes a one-page DOJ application and a public order from Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen. The application is dated July 16 and states that DOJ is proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The public filing does not identify the respondent or describe the alleged conduct.
Ericksen’s order says the United States filed the application on July 15 and that the court held a hearing on July 16. No sworn testimony was taken. The judge wrote that the court had questions about the connection DOJ alleged between the respondent’s actions and the specific statutory provisions the government invoked. She ordered DOJ to provide more factual or legal analysis by July 22.
The first public order from the court does not simply accept DOJ’s filing. It shows the judge asking whether the government has met the law’s threshold before the case can move forward.
Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The Federal Judicial Center says the court was designed for applications seeking removal of suspected alien terrorists, with judges assigned by the chief justice from different circuits. If an application is granted, the process can lead to a public removal hearing, with the government carrying the burden of proof.
The legal consequence is narrow but serious. DOJ may be testing a dormant process that permits classified evidence to remain shielded, while the court still provides Article III judicial review. Legal reaction has focused on that tension. Court Watch’s Seamus Hughes flagged the first case on Bluesky, while Just Security’s Steve Vladeck wrote that the court is not built for mass deportations but does raise due process concerns because a person may face removal based on evidence they cannot fully see.
Subscribe free for daily political analysis they won’t broadcast. Join 110K+ readers →