Published July 18, 2026 at 12:00 PM ET · Updated July 18, 2026 at 1:16 PM ET
Justice Department uses 'alien terrorist' deportation court for first time
1 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
The Department of Justice has used an alien terrorist deportation court for the first time. The action involves a specific legal mechanism for removing individuals designated as alien terrorists.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 4 hr ago, when Washington Examiner reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 4 hr ago from Washington Examiner. Verification tier: Watching — single-source — not yet independently corroborated.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Yamataya v. Fisher holds that an alien who has entered the United States may not be removed without due process, meaning at minimum notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Trump v. J.G.G. confirms the due process floor for removal under the Alien Enemies Act, requiring notice that detainees are subject to removal and time to contest it. A special court must satisfy that floor.
Kaoru Yamataya v. Thomas M. Fisher, Immigrant and Chinese Inspector (The Japanese Immigrant Case) 189 U.S. 86 (1903)
Vote: Majority for the Court (Harlan); Brewer and Peckham dissenting. Exact 7-2 tally not… · Opinion: Harlan
Although Congress may commit exclusion and deportation to executive officers without judicial trial, an alien who has landed and become part of the U.S.
Trump, President of the United States v. J. G. G. et al. (per curiam, on application to vacate temporary restraining orders) 604 U.S. ___ (2025) (per curiam)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
The TROs are vacated: challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas corpus in the district of confinement, so venue for these Texas-detained plaintiffs did not lie in the District of Columbia, and equitable/APA claims cannot substitute for habeas. Critically, the per curiam confirmed a due process floor: 'AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
