Alien Terrorist Removal Court Activated for the First Time in U.S. History: What Every Noncitizen Needs to Know
Alien Terrorist Removal Court Activated for the First Time in U.S. History: What Every Noncitizen Needs to Know
By Alena Shautsova, New York Immigration Attorney
For nearly thirty years, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) existed only on paper. Created by Congress in 1996, the court had never received a single case. That changed in July 2026, when the Trump Administration filed the first-ever application asking the court to authorize the removal of an alleged “alien terrorist.”
Many news outlets have described this tribunal as a “secret immigration court.” While that description captures some aspects of the process, it is not entirely accurate. The reality is more nuanced—and understanding those nuances is critical for immigrants, attorneys, and anyone concerned about immigration due process.
This article explains:
- What the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is;
- Which law created it;
- Why Congress established it in 1996;
- Who the judges are;
- Who may be brought before the court;
- Whether the proceedings are secret;
- What rights the respondent has;
- Whether classified evidence may be used;
- Whether the court’s decisions can be challenged;
- Why activation of this court represents one of the most significant immigration developments in decades.
A Court That Sat Empty for Thirty Years
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)—legislation enacted shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing amid growing concerns about international terrorism. Congress added a special set of immigration procedures to the Immigration and Nationality Act, now codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1537, titled Alien Terrorist Removal Procedures.
Congress believed that, in rare cases, the government possessed highly classified intelligence demonstrating that a noncitizen posed a national security threat, but that revealing the intelligence in ordinary immigration court could compromise intelligence sources, confidential informants, or ongoing operations.
Rather than force the government to choose between revealing classified information or abandoning removal proceedings, Congress created a specialized federal court.
Remarkably, despite existing since 1996, the court had never been used until now.
Is This an Immigration Court?
No.
Although it deals with removal from the United States, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is not part of EOIR (Executive Office for Immigration Review).
Instead, it is a special federal court established by Congress.
The judges are United States District Judges, not immigration judges employed by the Department of Justice.
This distinction matters because federal judges enjoy Article III protections that immigration judges do not.
Who Are the Judges?
Federal law directs the Chief Justice of the United States to designate up to five federal district judges to serve on the court.
According to the court’s official website, the current judges are:
- Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen (Presiding)
- Judge Kenneth M. Karas (Southern District of New York)
- Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti
- Judge Karin J. Immergut
- Judge Sara E. Lioi
These judges continue serving in their regular federal courts while also sitting on the Alien Terrorist Removal Court when necessary.
Why Did Congress Create This Court?
The primary purpose was to solve one difficult problem:
How can the government remove an alleged terrorist without revealing classified intelligence?
In ordinary immigration court:
- evidence is generally disclosed;
- respondents can challenge it;
- attorneys may inspect government exhibits.
National security agencies argued that some intelligence simply could not be disclosed publicly.
Congress therefore created a special process balancing:
- national security,
- classified intelligence,
- immigration enforcement,
- procedural fairness.
Whether Congress struck the correct balance has been debated since 1996.
Who Can Be Brought Before This Court?
Not every immigrant.
Not even every person accused of supporting terrorism.
The statute applies only in very limited circumstances.
The Attorney General must determine that the individual qualifies as an “alien terrorist” under the statutory framework and that using ordinary removal proceedings would risk disclosure of classified information. The application must be approved by the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General.
Depending on the statutory provisions invoked, the allegations may involve:
- engaging in terrorist activity;
- membership in certain terrorist organizations;
- providing material support for terrorism;
- soliciting funds for terrorist activities;
- or other terrorism-related grounds established by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Importantly, simply disagreeing with the U.S. government or holding controversial political opinions does not, by itself, satisfy these statutory requirements. The government must fit the allegations within the terrorism-related provisions of immigration law.
Does the Government Need Evidence?
Yes.
The Attorney General cannot simply announce that someone is a terrorist.
The statute requires a written application setting forth facts supporting probable cause that the individual qualifies under the law.
Interestingly, in the first-ever ATRC case filed in July 2026, the presiding judge concluded that the government’s initial submission was insufficient and ordered the Department of Justice to provide a more complete explanation of its legal theory and supporting facts before the case could proceed.
That development demonstrates that the court is not functioning as a mere rubber stamp.
Is the Entire Proceeding Secret?
No.
This is perhaps the largest misconception.
Only certain portions of the process may occur under seal.
For example:
- the initial application may contain classified information;
- intelligence materials may remain classified;
- some judicial review may occur in camera.
However, the statute specifically provides that the removal hearing itself is generally open to the public, subject to protections necessary for classified information.
Thus, describing the court as entirely secret is an oversimplification.
Please see the language of the statute:
- 1534. Removal hearing
(a) In general
(1) Expeditious hearing
In any case in which an application for an order is approved under section 1533(c)(2) of this title, a removal hearing shall be conducted under this section as expeditiously as practicable for the purpose of determining whether the alien to whom the order pertains should be removed from the United States on the grounds that the alien is an alien terrorist.
(2) Public hearing
The removal hearing shall be open to the public.
(b) Notice
An alien who is the subject of a removal hearing under this subchapter shall be given reasonable notice of-
(1) the nature of the charges against the alien, including a general account of the basis for the charges; and
(2) the time and place at which the hearing will be held.
(c) Rights in hearing
(1) Right of counsel
The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18. All provisions of that section shall apply and, for purposes of determining the maximum amount of compensation, the matter shall be treated as if a felony was charged.
(2) Introduction of evidence
Subject to the limitations in subsection (e), the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to introduce evidence on the alien’s own behalf.
(3) Examination of witnesses
Subject to the limitations in subsection (e), the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien and to cross-examine any witness.
(4) Record
A verbatim record of the proceedings and of all testimony and evidence offered or produced at such a hearing shall be kept.
(5) Removal decision based on evidence at hearing
The decision of the judge regarding removal shall be based only on that evidence introduced at the removal hearing.
…
Can Classified Evidence Be Used?
Yes.
This is the defining feature of the statute.
Congress authorized the court to consider classified information while attempting to minimize disclosure that could harm national security.
In some circumstances:
- the judge may review classified materials privately;
- summaries rather than original documents may be provided;
- disclosure may be limited if revealing the information would threaten national security.
These procedures differ substantially from ordinary immigration court practice.
Does the Person Receive Notice?
Yes.
The statute requires that the respondent receive reasonable notice of:
- the nature of the charges; and
- a general account of the basis for those charges.
Even where classified information is involved, Congress required that the individual receive enough information to understand the allegations and prepare a defense.
Does the Person Have a Lawyer?
Yes.
Respondents may be represented by counsel.
Like most immigration proceedings, however, the government is generally not required to provide a free attorney if the respondent cannot afford one.
Given the complexity of terrorism-related immigration law and the possibility of classified evidence, experienced legal representation is especially important.
Can the Individual Challenge the Government’s Evidence?
Yes—but with limitations.
The respondent may:
- contest whether the statutory definition applies;
- challenge factual allegations;
- present witnesses;
- submit documentary evidence;
- make legal arguments.
However, because some classified evidence may not be fully disclosed, defense counsel may face unique challenges that do not exist in ordinary immigration court.
Can Someone Be Detained?
Yes.
The statute authorizes custody after an application is filed. Lawful permanent residents have additional statutory provisions allowing them to seek release pending the hearing under specified conditions, while detention rules differ for other noncitizens.
Can the Decision Be Appealed?
Yes.
Congress did not make ATRC decisions completely immune from judicial review.
The statutory framework provides for appellate review, although the procedures differ from ordinary immigration appeals.
As with many national security cases, appellate courts may also review classified materials under special procedures.
Why Didn’t Previous Administrations Use This Court?
This is an interesting historical question.
For thirty years, administrations from both political parties relied on:
- ordinary removal proceedings;
- criminal terrorism prosecutions;
- material support inadmissibility grounds;
- post-9/11 national security authorities;
- and, more recently, other statutory mechanisms such as the Alien Enemies Act in different contexts.
Until July 2026, no administration chose to invoke the ATRC.
Why Is the 2026 Filing So Significant?
The filing marks several historic firsts:
- the first use of the court since its creation;
- the first judicial interpretation of many ATRC provisions;
- the first opportunity for federal courts to define how these procedures operate in practice.
It may also shape future litigation concerning:
- classified evidence;
- procedural due process;
- judicial review;
- the scope of terrorism-related removal grounds.
Potential Constitutional Questions
Because the court has never before been used, many constitutional issues remain unresolved.
Among the questions that could eventually reach higher courts are:
- What level of disclosure is constitutionally required when classified evidence is involved?
- Does a summary of classified information provide adequate due process?
- What procedural protections must accompany removal based on national security allegations?
- How should courts balance national security with an individual’s right to defend against removal?
Future appellate decisions may provide important guidance.
Practical Advice for Noncitizens
Although activation of the ATRC has generated significant headlines, most immigrants will never encounter this court. It is designed for an exceptionally narrow category of national security cases.
Nevertheless, the development underscores a broader lesson: immigration law increasingly intersects with national security statutes, classified evidence, and specialized procedures. If you are contacted by federal authorities regarding allegations involving terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility or removability—or if your case raises questions about material support, organizational affiliations, or national security—it is essential to seek experienced legal counsel immediately.
Early legal intervention can make a substantial difference in preserving rights, evaluating the government’s allegations, and identifying available defenses.
Final Thoughts
The activation of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court is a landmark event in U.S. immigration law. Created by Congress nearly three decades ago, the court remained dormant until the Trump Administration’s first filing in July 2026. Although some aspects of the proceedings involve classified information and sealed filings, the process is not wholly secret: the statute provides for judicial oversight, notice to the respondent, representation by counsel, and generally public removal hearings, while also allowing special procedures to protect national security information.
For immigration lawyers and affected noncitizens alike, this is an area of law that is likely to evolve rapidly as courts interpret provisions that have never before been applied. Anyone facing terrorism-related immigration allegations should obtain experienced legal advice as early as possible, because these cases present some of the most complex procedural and constitutional issues in the immigration system.
