Justice Department activates untested court for ‘alien terrorist’ deportations 6%

By Associated Press60%

7/19/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 16.9% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 206 faulty-reasoning hits from 472 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.2% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,599 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.10% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON  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 has the burden to prove 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 by 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 who 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 to consider a request for deportation 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%Associated Press: 2.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.2%Butler Eagle: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Associated Press: 7.1%Butler Eagle: 11.3%Framing Effect16.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.6%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Associated Press: 8.7%Butler Eagle: 2.9%Negativity Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.0%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%Butler Eagle: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.3%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.4%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Butler Eagle: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.5%Associated Press: 2.7%Butler Eagle: 3.2%Hasty Generalization9.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 4.7%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.7%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Associated Press: 1.2%Butler Eagle: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.0%Butler Eagle: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Butler Eagle: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

472 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech341writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 56 words • 0.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 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 • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joan Ericksen

0%flagged-word coverage
80 attributed words61% of attributed speech58% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.