For the first time in the 30-year history of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), the U.S. Department of Justice has asked the secret tribunal to order the deportation of a non-citizen accused of terrorist activity. A single-page petition was filed last week and acknowledged by the court’s chief judge, one of five judges appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts. Although the respondent’s identity and nationality are sealed, the filing confirms that a closed hearing has already been held and that prosecutors must submit additional evidence this Wednesday. Congress created the ATRC in 1996 so the government could present classified intelligence behind closed doors while still obtaining a judicial removal order. Because the court sat dormant for three decades, immigration authorities instead relied on standard immigration courts or criminal prosecutions—even in high-profile terrorism cases such as the “Blind Sheikh” in 1993 or the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Reviving the tribunal signals a willingness by the Trump administration to use every statutory tool available to expedite removals viewed as national-security threats. Unlike ordinary immigration courts, the ATRC can receive classified evidence ex parte and in camera and may allow anonymous witness testimony. Civil-liberties groups have long argued that the process violates due-process guarantees because defense counsel must obtain a security clearance to see some of the evidence—or may be barred from it altogether. The court’s rules also prohibit appeals outside the federal circuit courts, potentially fast-tracking an eventual physical removal once an order is entered. For multinational companies, a broader use of the ATRC could reshape the compliance landscape. Non-citizen employees under investigation for security grounds may find themselves in a little-known judicial forum with limited transparency, complicating efforts by employers to monitor legal risk and support sponsored workers. Global mobility managers should review internal escalation protocols and ensure that security-related investigations are flagged early so counsel can prepare for the possibility of ATRC proceedings. Practically, the case will test how quickly Homeland Security can effect a removal order that relies on classified evidence—an outcome that could encourage the government to refer more complex national-security cases to the ATRC instead of traditional immigration courts. Observers expect civil-rights litigation challenging the court’s constitutionality if its first decision results in deportation based on secret evidence.
Source: Associated Press
