WWAYTV332%

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

By Associated Press60%

7/19/2026, 8:39:31 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% (15,139 of 21,187 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.50% 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?” 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
7%
Availability Heuristic
15.7%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
5.2%
Framing Effect
10.2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
6.3%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
10.2%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
7%
Primacy Effect
9.8%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
16.6%
False Dilemma
6.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
2%
Begging the Question
2.2%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
7%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
5.9%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
8.7%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
12.2%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
27.5%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

459 words analyzed.

Analysis

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