Justice Department activates untested court for ‘alien terrorist' deportations 41%

By Eric Tucker35% The Associated Press63%

7/19/2026, 4:47:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 17.7% saturation with 83 hits. Analysis detected 690 faulty-reasoning hits from 468 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.3% and a BS Rank of 41% (13,116 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.90% 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 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%Eric Tucker: 3.3%NBC4 Washington: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Eric Tucker: 2.4%NBC4 Washington: 2.3%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.1%NBC4 Washington: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.8%NBC4 Washington: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Eric Tucker: 8.4%NBC4 Washington: 11.1%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.8%Eric Tucker: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 1.4%Status Quo Bias6.8%This article: 6.8%Eric Tucker: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Sunk Cost Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Eric Tucker: 11.8%NBC4 Washington: 6.8%Negativity Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%NBC4 Washington: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%NBC4 Washington: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.7%Eric Tucker: 1.3%NBC4 Washington: 2.8%Recency Bias17.7%This article: 6.6%Eric Tucker: 0.5%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Primacy Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.6%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.2%Eric Tucker: 2.3%NBC4 Washington: 2.7%Appeal to Authority13.2%This article: 2.1%Eric Tucker: 1.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.2%False Dilemma2.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.2%Eric Tucker: 0.4%NBC4 Washington: 0.6%Circular Reasoning6.2%This article: 8.1%Eric Tucker: 3.2%NBC4 Washington: 2.4%Hasty Generalization8.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 4.5%NBC4 Washington: 1.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.4%NBC4 Washington: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.4%Eric Tucker: 0.9%NBC4 Washington: 0.2%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Eric Tucker: 2.0%NBC4 Washington: 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%NBC4 Washington: 2.0%Unattributed Quote12.0%This article: 2.1%Eric Tucker: 2.6%NBC4 Washington: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.1%This article: 11.5%Eric Tucker: 6.9%NBC4 Washington: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%NBC4 Washington: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.8%NBC4 Washington: 1.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Eric Tucker: 0.7%NBC4 Washington: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.7%This article: 6.8%Eric Tucker: 0.3%NBC4 Washington: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.8%

468 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers32%attributed speech316writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 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 • 100.0% 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 • 100.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 29 words • 0.0% coverageCourt Watch • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

James Boasberg

80%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words32% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Politically Right Leaning -21.8 ptsWriter: 21.8%James Boasberg: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+20.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%James Boasberg: 20.4%20.4%Biased Writer Voice-17.1 ptsWriter: 17.1%James Boasberg: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%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.