Alien Terrorist Removal Court Faces Rare Review of Expulsion Procedures

The Justice Department filed the first application under Title V of the Immigration and Nationality Act to activate the Alien Terrorist Removal Court against an unnamed non-citizen, opening a rare review of the government’s expedited removal process.

The application, filed July 15, 2026, remains sealed because it contains classified information. Chief Judge Joan Ericksen held a closed hearing the following day.

Ericksen, a U.S. district judge designated by the Chief Justice to lead the tribunal, then ordered the department to strengthen its filing. The case is moving quickly. The government must respond by July 22, 2026.

In a one-page order issued July 18, Ericksen said the submission required more consideration.

“The government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration. The court has lingering questions about the actions taken by the Justice Department target and how they connect to the laws providing for the removal of 'alien terrorists.'”

The proceeding is the tribunal’s first application since its establishment in 1996, after it remained dormant for nearly three decades. Legal experts are watching the case for precedents involving terrorism-related removals and classified evidence.

The tribunal can move faster than ordinary immigration proceedings

Congress created the court through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Its statutory foundation therefore predates the September 11 attacks, although the court formed part of a wider push for stronger national security measures after those attacks.

The tribunal lets the government seek removal of non-citizens suspected of terrorism while relying on evidence that cannot be disclosed publicly without risking national security. The relevant framework appears in Title 5 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and in 8 U.S.C. § 1534, the removal-hearing provision.

The law requires an expedited process. Under the procedural rules, a detained individual who requests a hearing generally receives one within 30 days to determine whether the person should remain in custody or be removed. The source framework also describes a hearing within 30 days to decide whether the individual should be removed from the United States.

That timetable does not resolve the government’s burden in the current case. Ericksen’s order shows that the court is examining how the alleged conduct connects to the statutory grounds for removal.

Classified evidence limits what the accused can see

The tribunal’s procedures differ from standard immigration hearings. The government may present unclassified summaries instead of disclosing the full classified record to the individual.

A security-cleared “special attorney” can review the secret evidence. The individual, however, may never see the full basis of the government’s case.

Detention also follows a different path. Individuals brought before the tribunal are typically held without bond while the removal hearing proceeds.

Those restrictions make the sealed application and closed hearing central features of the case, rather than administrative details. They also place greater weight on the judge’s review of the government’s legal explanation.

The first use follows decades of limited activity

The tribunal had been described as a “paper tiger” because the government generally relied on traditional immigration courts or criminal prosecution instead. Its activation on July 15 signals an effort to use an additional statutory tool in national security removals.

DHS General Counsel James Percival said in a related statement on June 25, 2026, that the administration was focused on “reaffirming several. policies and decisions to secure the homeland and remove criminal illegal aliens.” Officials have linked the tribunal’s use to the “Make America Safe Again” initiative.

The current matter involves an unnamed individual and a filing that remains under seal. That limits the public record while the court tests whether the department has tied its allegations to the law’s definition of removable “alien terrorists.”

The next procedural marker is July 22, when the Justice Department must submit its updated response. The tribunal’s review will then show whether the government can satisfy the questions raised in the July 18 order.