WWAYTV335%

Justice Department activates untested court for ‘alien terrorist’ deportations 29%

By Associated Press60%

7/19/2026, 1:39:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 27.5% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 733 faulty-reasoning hits from 459 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.4% and a BS Rank of 29% (15,618 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.40% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON (AP)  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?” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WWAYTV3: 2.3%Anchoring Bias7.0%This article: 15.7%Associated Press: 3.2%WWAYTV3: 5.2%Availability Heuristic15.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Associated Press: 1.1%WWAYTV3: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 10.2%Associated Press: 7.1%WWAYTV3: 12.7%Framing Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.3%Associated Press: 0.6%WWAYTV3: 2.1%Status Quo Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.6%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Associated Press: 8.7%WWAYTV3: 4.1%Negativity Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.0%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%WWAYTV3: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.3%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Associated Press: 1.4%WWAYTV3: 2.3%Recency Bias7.0%This article: 9.8%Associated Press: 0.3%WWAYTV3: 3.3%Primacy Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.6%Associated Press: 3.4%WWAYTV3: 5.5%Appeal to Authority16.6%This article: 6.3%Associated Press: 0.8%WWAYTV3: 2.1%False Dilemma6.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.7%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.0%Associated Press: 4.7%WWAYTV3: 0.7%Appeal to Emotion2.0%This article: 2.2%Associated Press: 0.6%WWAYTV3: 0.7%Begging the Question2.2%This article: 7.0%Associated Press: 2.2%WWAYTV3: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.9%Associated Press: 0.5%WWAYTV3: 2.0%Burden of Proof5.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.7%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.7%Associated Press: 1.2%WWAYTV3: 2.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.2%Associated Press: 1.3%WWAYTV3: 4.1%Unattributed Quote12.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 27.5%Associated Press: 3.0%WWAYTV3: 9.8%Biased Writer Voice27.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WWAYTV3: 2.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WWAYTV3: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

459 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers31%attributed speech319writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% 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 • 40 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 • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

James Boasberg

80%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words35% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.5 ptsWriter: 39.5%James Boasberg: 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.