CNBC54%

Justice Department activates court for 'alien terrorist' deportations 19%

By The Associated Press63%

7/19/2026, 8:34:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Burden of Proof, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 396 faulty-reasoning hits from 465 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.5% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,930 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport so-called "alien terrorists" from the United States. 
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until this past Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court's website. 
The chief judge of the five-member court, Joan Ericksen, said in a written response to the petition that a hearing was held on Thursday during which the court had "questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions. 
"The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration," wrote Ericksen, a federal judge in Minnesota. 
She directed the Justice Department to provide more information by Wednesday. 
The court's authorities emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which permits the attorney general to file under seal applications for the deportation of a suspected "alien terrorist." 
If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing at which the government bears the burden of proving that the individual satisfies that definition. 
Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general. 
Federal law says that an individual could qualify as an "alien terrorist" by, among other factors, having "engaged in a terrorist activity," endorsing or espousing terrorist activities, and belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorist activity. 
The court has been dormant since its creation, having received  until last week  no applications and conducting no hearings, according to a summary posted on the Federal Judicial Center website. 
It is comprised of five judges selected by Chief Justice John Roberts. 
The Trump administration has moved aggressively over the last year to carry out deportations, including invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to remove Venezuelan migrants whom officials accuse of being part of a terrorist gang. 
During a hearing in that case last year, the Washington judge presiding over it, James Boasberg, indicated that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be the natural forum for considering a deportation request on national security grounds. 
"In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn't it? 
Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court," he said. 
"So if there's a national security concern with having these hearings...you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that's what it's there for, right?" 
The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.8%CNBC: 4.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.4%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%The Associated Press: 3.2%CNBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic2.6%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%CNBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%CNBC: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%CNBC: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%The Associated Press: 11.1%CNBC: 6.5%Framing Effect16.6%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.9%The Associated Press: 0.7%CNBC: 0.8%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.1%CNBC: 7.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%CNBC: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%The Associated Press: 11.0%CNBC: 6.4%Negativity Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.2%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.2%CNBC: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.0%CNBC: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.9%CNBC: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.0%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.8%CNBC: 5.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%CNBC: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.2%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.0%CNBC: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.3%CNBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 5.6%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.8%CNBC: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.4%The Associated Press: 0.5%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof8.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.3%CNBC: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.7%The Associated Press: 1.7%CNBC: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.7%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%CNBC: 2.5%Unattributed Quote12.0%This article: 2.2%The Associated Press: 1.2%CNBC: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 8.4%The Associated Press: 3.9%CNBC: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice8.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%CNBC: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%CNBC: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%The Associated Press: 0.3%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%CNBC: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

465 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech325writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 56 words • 100.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joan Ericksen

62%flagged-word coverage
91 attributed words65% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Unattributed Quote+61.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joan Ericksen: 61.5%61.5%Biased Writer Voice-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%Joan Ericksen: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Joan Ericksen: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.