2026-07-28T16:04:46-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
美国司法部正试图启用一项已有数十年历史的秘密联邦移民法庭，这是该法庭首次进入测试案件，有望让司法部加快驱逐涉嫌“外国恐怖主义者”的进程。
外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭由美国国会于1996年设立，经比尔·克林顿总统签署成为法律。设立该法庭的初衷是为了驱逐那些无法通过传统法律程序被驱逐的非公民，因为案件相关信息属于机密，出于国家安全原因无法公开。
非公民恐怖主义者驱逐程序的对象——包括合法永久居民在内——无权查看针对他们的机密证据，且与刑事诉讼不同，他们无法在法律上质疑政府收集证据的方式。
根据法律，只有司法部长才能批准“外国恐怖主义者”驱逐申请，由美国最高法院首席大法官任命的五名联邦法官中，将有一人决定是否批准或驳回该请求。如果法官驳回申请，政府可向哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院提起上诉。
司法部必须证明有合理理由相信被告是符合“外国恐怖主义者”法律定义的非公民，并对国家安全构成威胁。此类提交的文件大多处于密封状态，仅由法官和政府审查。
被告可以聘请律师，如果当事人是绿卡持有者，政府可以任命一名拥有安全许可的律师。
但该法庭此前一直是个“僵尸”法庭——仅存在于纸面之上。这一情况在7月15日发生改变，当日司法部提交了首份申请，要求对一名“外国恐怖主义者”启动驱逐程序。
该申请首先由独立新闻机构“法庭观察”报道，内容几乎完全保密，提交时官方法庭网站甚至尚未上线。
提交申请的同一天，代理司法部长托德·布兰奇出席了参议院司法委员会的确认听证会，以正式担任司法部长一职。
申请直到数天后该法庭的新网站首次上线才公开，因此议员们无法在公开听证会上就司法部决定启用外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭一事向他发问。
目前，一名被指派到该法庭的联邦法官已要求司法部提供更多信息以支持其驱逐请求，但案件细节仍是谜团。不过，如果政府的申请获得批准，法庭将必须举行公开的驱逐听证会。
“这是一位总统都不愿开创的先例，”李与戈德肖尔-贝内特律师事务所的移民律师埃里克·李说道。
“如果行政部门可以基于秘密证据和被告无权知晓的辩论，以及可能通过完全非法手段获取的证据，拘留一名享有完整宪法权利的在美人员，这将是我国历史上从未跨越的红线，”他补充道。
司法部拒绝透露案件细节，指出其完全处于密封状态，但一位发言人表示，司法部“将动用所有可用工具将外国恐怖主义者绳之以法并将其驱逐出美国，包括1996年国会设立的这一法庭。”
选择一条全新且未经检验的法律途径推进驱逐程序，是特朗普政府一系列反移民政策举措的最新一步。
本届政府已正式将已知贩毒集团和犯罪帮派列为外国恐怖组织，这一标签可让政府更容易启动快速驱逐程序。
去年，司法部尝试了另一种加快驱逐涉嫌恐怖主义者的途径，援引1798年《敌国外侨法》，试图驱逐委内瑞拉犯罪团伙“阿拉瓜火车”的涉嫌成员。
当时此举遭遇了一些阻力，美国哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院首席法官詹姆斯·博斯伯格认为，处理涉及敏感国家安全事项的驱逐案件的最佳场所是外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭。
该法庭从未被政府启用过，但其结构与一个被广泛使用的法庭类似：外国情报监控法庭。该法庭负责审查监视令和其他国家安全调查行动的申请。
目前被任命到外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭的五名法官，同时也都在外国情报监控法庭任职。
尽管与刑事司法系统相比，该法庭的证据标准低得多，但一些法律专家表示，司法部申请将受到的司法审查，或许有助于抵消部分相关担忧。
“这是一部成文法设立的第三条宪法修正案法庭，旨在实现特定目的。这是平衡正当程序的最高标准，”阿拉姆·加沃尔说道，他曾在民事部门担任国家安全律师，并发表过一篇关于外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭历史的文章。
他表示，对于政府针对的非公民缺乏公开证据的担忧，“可由我们司法系统中最严肃的一批法官群体予以平衡。”
“他们绝不会走捷径，”加沃尔说道。
这种司法层面的制衡在当前待审案件中已初现端倪。
驻明尼苏达州联邦法院的外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭首席法官琼·埃里克森已就司法部的驱逐申请作出回应。她表示需要更多信息。
在7月16日的密封听证会之后，她写道，法庭“对政府指称的被告行为与其援引的相关条款之间的关联存有疑问。”埃里克森要求司法部补充案卷。
目前尚不清楚司法部为何选择在此时首次尝试启用外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭。
但前司法部反恐副首席律师杰夫·布赖恩霍尔特表示，过去寻找测试案件的努力均以失败告终。
外国恐怖主义者驱逐法庭由克林顿时期的国会设立后，布赖恩霍尔特曾在一个特别工作组中任职，协助寻找司法部可向该法庭提交申请的测试案件。
他表示自己遇到了诸多障碍。例如，联邦调查局希望对其调查目标提起刑事诉讼，而非仅仅驱逐出境。
“我们走访了全国各地， consistently got shut out by the FBI. They didn’t want to share their files. They didn’t want to give up one of their targets to be removed,” 他回忆道。
他还遇到了高级司法部官员的顾虑，这些官员不愿让时任司法部长珍妮特·雷诺认证，称无法通过传统移民法庭启动驱逐程序。
他曾一度在佛罗里达州找到一起案件，并花了三个月时间撰写备忘录以推动其进入审理程序，但最终不了了之，被告最终被定罪。
“在我写完备忘录后，它在官僚机构中被搁置，我觉得该法庭永远无法正式启用，”他说道。
他补充道，即使司法部在测试案件中取得成功，获得法庭许可驱逐该人员，该人员的祖国仍有可能拒绝接收他们。
“我们已通过移民程序或刑事程序将他们贴上了恐怖分子的标签，”他说。“没有哪个国家愿意接收恐怖分子。”
DOJ tests limits of secretive, never-before-used court to deport suspected terrorist
2026-07-28T16:04:46-0400 / CBS News
The Justice Department is now attempting to use a decades-old, secretive federal immigration court that has never been used in a test case that could allow it to expedite the deportation of suspected “alien terrorists.”
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created by Congress in 1996 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It was set up to deport noncitizens who could not be removed by the traditional legal process because the information about their cases was classified and could not be made public for national security reasons.
The targets of noncitizen terrorist removal proceedings — including legal permanent residents — are not permitted to review the classified evidence against them, and unlike criminal proceedings, they are barred from legally challenging how the evidence was collected by the government.
Only the attorney general may approve “alien terrorist” removal applications by law, and one of five federal judges appointed to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court by the chief justice of the Supreme Court must decide whether to approve or deny the request. If the judge denies an application, the government can appeal to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The Justice Department must show probable cause that the defendant is a noncitizen who meets the legal definition of an “alien terrorist” and poses a national security threat. Such filings are made largely under seal and are reviewed only by the judge and the government.
The defendant can hire an attorney, and if the person is a green card holder, the government can appoint an attorney with a security clearance.
But it’s been a “zombie” court — it has existed solely on paper. That changed on July 15 when the Justice Department filed its first application seeking removal of an “alien terrorist.”
The application, which was first reported by the independent news organization Court Watch, is almost entirely classified, and was filed before an official court website even existed.
The filing came on the same day Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing to serve as attorney general.
The application was not made public until several days later when a new website for the court first went live, so lawmakers were unable to question him publicly about the Justice Department’s decision to use the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
A federal judge assigned to the court has since asked the department for more information to support its removal request, but the details of the case remain a mystery. If the government’s application is approved, however, the court will be required to hold a public removal hearing.
“It’s a precedent that no president has wanted to set,” said Eric Lee, an immigration attorney with the law firm Lee & Godshall-Bennett.
“If the executive branch can detain someone with full constitutional rights who’s in the United States, based on secret evidence and arguments that they’re not allowed to hear, and evidence that might have been acquired through completely illegal means, those are Rubicons that have not been crossed in this country’s history,” he said.
The Justice Department declined to provide details about the case, noting it was entirely sealed, but a spokesperson said the department “will use every tool available to bring alien terrorists to justice and remove them from the United States, including this court established by Congress in 1996.”
The decision to pursue a new and untested legal pathway for removal proceedings marks the latest move in a series of actions to carry out President Trump’s anti-immigration policies.
The administration has formally designated known drug cartels and criminal gangs as foreign terrorist organizations, a label that can make it easier for the government to seek expedited removal proceedings.
Last year, the Justice Department tried a different approach to expediting removals for suspected terrorists, invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to try to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan criminal group known as Tren de Aragua.
It ran into some pushback when Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia opined that the best forum for addressing removal cases involving sensitive national security matters was the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
The court has never been utilized by the government, but its structure is similar to one that is heavily used: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This is the court that reviews applications for surveillance warrants and other national security investigative actions.
All five of the judges appointed to the Alien Terrorist Removal Court are also serving on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Although the evidentiary standards are significantly lower in comparison with the criminal justice system, some legal experts say that the judicial scrutiny that the Justice Department’s applications would receive may help counterbalance some of those concerns.
“This is an Article III court created by statute for a special purpose. It is the highest standard of due process balancing,” said Aram Gavoor, a former national security attorney at the Civil Division who previously published an article on the history of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
He said that concern about the lack of publicly available evidence regarding noncitizens targeted by the government “is counterbalanced by a cohort of the most serious judges we have on the bench.”
“They are not going to cut corners at all,” Gavoor said.
Some of that judicial counterbalancing is already beginning to show in the pending case.
Joan Ericksen, the chief judge for the Alien Terrorist Removal Court who is based in federal court in Minnesota, already responded to the Justice Department’s removal application. She said she needs more information.
After a sealed July 16 hearing, she wrote that 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.” Ericksen asked the Justice Department to supplement the record.
It was not immediately apparent why the Justice Department has chosen to try to use the Alien Terrorist Removal Court for the first time now.
But efforts to find a test case in the past have failed, said Jeff Breinholt, a former Justice Department attorney who served as the counterterrorism deputy chief.
After the Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created by Congress during the Clinton administration, Breinholt served on a task force that helped look for a test case that the Justice Department could try filing with the court.
He said he ran into challenges. The FBI, for example, wanted its targets of criminal investigation to be prosecuted, not just deported.
“We traveled around the country, and consistently got shut out by the FBI. They didn’t want to share their files. They didn’t want to give up one of their targets to be removed,” he recalled.
He also ran into concerns from senior DOJ officials who did not feel comfortable having then-Attorney General Janet Reno certify that the removal proceedings could not be brought through the conventional immigration courts.
At one point, he located a case in Florida and spent three months writing a memo to get it considered. But it went nowhere, and the defendant was eventually convicted.
“I felt after I wrote that memo and it got sort of tied up in the bureaucracy that there was no way this court would ever get off the ground,” he said.
He added that even if the Justice Department is successful with its test case and obtains permission from the court to deport the person, there is still a chance that the person’s home country could refuse to accept them.
“We’ve labeled them effectively as a terrorist, either through the immigration proceedings or the criminal proceedings,” he said. “No country wants to take terrorists.”