Trump's DOJ turns to a never-used court for its next deportation fight

The https://www.axios.com/2026/04/02/trump-todd-blanche-acting-attorney-general" target="_blank">Justice Department is asking a never-before-used federal court to https://www.axios.com/2026/07/16/aclu-immigration-local-policing-deportations" target="_blank">remove an unnamed noncitizen, the first use of a 30-year-old process that could give President Trump a new tool for his https://www.axios.com/2026/01/15/trump-deportations-ice-polls-immigration" target="_blank">deportation agenda.

Why it matters: If the Justice Department wins, it could remove people it links to terrorism while keeping much of its evidence secret.

• A loss could show why this court sat idle for 30 years: The law may demand more than the government wants to provide.

Driving the news: The DOJ filed the https://www.atrc.uscourts.gov/docs/2026-TRC-1-Application.pdf" target="_blank">first application in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court's history last Wednesday.

• The one-page filing does not name the person, the alleged conduct or the part of the anti-terrorism law the department cited.

  News site Court Watch first https://www.courtwatch.news/p/alien-terrorist-removal-court-has-its-first-case" target="_blank">reported the filing.

• Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen, who heard arguments Thursday, questioned the connection between the person's alleged actions and the law.
• She https://www.atrc.uscourts.gov/docs/2026-TRC-1-Order.pdf" target="_blank">ordered the government to provide more facts and legal analysis by Wednesday.
• The White House and Justice Department have not immediately responded to requests for comment.

How it works: The law sets up two stages: one private and the other public.

• In private, one judge decides if there is probable cause.
• At the public hearing, DOJ must show it is more likely than not that the person meets the law's definition of an "alien terrorist."
• Even in public, the person facing removal and the public don't have the right to see classified evidence, but the DOJ must provide an unclassified summary.

Context: Congress created the five-judge court in 1996 for cases when ordinary immigration proceedings could expose classified information and threaten national security.

• The definition of a terrorist covers noncitizens who carried out or are likely to carry out terrorist activity.

  It also includes those who incite or endorse terrorism, represent or belong to certain terrorist groups, or receive military-type training from them.

• Normal federal evidence rules don't apply.

  The law explicitly allows the U.S. to use illegally obtained evidence.

Flashback: The DOJ considered 100 possible cases by 2000 and rejected all of them, according to a https://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Monograph.pdf" target="_blank">9/11 Commission staff report.

• Officials found ordinary immigration charges sufficient, the report says.

Between the lines: Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act in 2025 to remove Venezuelans his administration accused of belonging to Tren de Aragua.

The Supreme Court https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/605us1r31_7k47.pdf" target="_blank">ruled that people targeted under that law must receive notice and a chance to challenge their removal.

• During that litigation, Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia pointed DOJ to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
• "Congress has an answer for us, doesn't it?" Boasberg https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.51.0.pdf" target="_blank">said. "Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court."

Reality check: While the court offers a new route for deportations, it seems ill-equipped to work en masse.

• To win deportation, all cases must go through senior DOJ approval, a judge's review and a full hearing.

What's next: DOJ's supplemental filing is due Wednesday.