DOJ files first-ever application to activate Alien Terrorist Removal Court

On July 15, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) took an extraordinary step by filing its first-ever application to activate the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC)—a specialized Article III federal court that Congress established thirty years ago as an alternative to administrative removal proceedings for cases involving "alien terrorists." Equally extraordinary was the ATRC's inaugural order, which stated that the government's initial application "could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration" and directed the DOJ to file a supplement.

Given the Trump administration's politicization of immigration, expansion of non-adversarial expedited removal proceedings, and imposition of harsh tactics and policies, there is ample reason to be skeptical of the motives behind DOJ's use of this tribunal. However, regardless of motive, the activation of the ATRC could end up being a key step toward positive changes in due process for noncitizens and may help underscore that the immigration system needs to be reformed.

What Is the ATRC?

Congress created the ATRC in 1996 under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and amended its procedures in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act months later. Both laws focused on national security and immigration enforcement.

The ATRC provides for specialized removal proceedings in cases involving potential "alien terrorists" and cases involving national security. The statute requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to publicly designate five district judges to constitute the ATRC. Though the court has never been used, Congress set out a detailed procedure for bringing a case:

• Application Process: DOJ must file an "application" certified by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, including a statement of facts and circumstances to establish probable cause that:
• The noncitizen "is an alien terrorist"
• The noncitizen is physically present in the U.S.
• Removal under ordinary administrative removal proceedings "would pose a risk to the national security of the United States"

• Initial Review: One of the five designated judges considers the application in secret—without the noncitizen present or even aware of the proceeding (ex parte) and behind closed doors (in camera). The judge may consider testimony, argument, and evidence, including classified information, that is "presented under oath or affirmation."

• Removal Hearing: If the judge grants the application, the noncitizen is provided notice of the proceedings, and the ATRC conducts a removal hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1534, which includes a public hearing.

• Appeals: Either the noncitizen or DOJ has the right to appeal both the final decision and the ATRC's handling of classified information to the D.C. Circuit on an expedited basis.

Potential Scope and Concerns

While seemingly limited to specific national security situations, the ATRC could be far-reaching. The statute defines "alien terrorist" by cross-referencing sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that broadly describe terrorist activities and organizations.

The cross-referenced provisions (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), (F)) include actions obviously related to terrorism, such as:

• Engaging in terrorist activity
• Being a representative of a terrorist organization

However, the statute also includes actions and associations that could be construed far more broadly, such as:

• Being a representative of "a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity"
• Being the spouse or child of someone described in the sections relating to terrorist activity, if the activity occurred within the last five years
• Soliciting funds for or membership in an organization defined as a terrorist organization
• Providing material support (including housing, communications, and funds) to a terrorist organization

Although there is some case law surrounding the sections describing terrorist activities and organizations, there is no statutory definition and less case law to guide interpretation of these broader provisions.