United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court | |
---|---|
Location | Washington, D.C. |
Appeals to | District of Columbia Circuit |
Established | 1996 |
Authority | Article III court |
Created by | Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 8 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1537 |
Composition method | Chief Justice appointment |
Judges | 5 |
Judge term length | 5 years |
Chief Judge | James Boasberg |
The United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court is a special court in the United States created in 1996 that has never conducted proceedings. It consists of five Article III judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the United States. [1] Its job is to determine whether aliens (non-citizens) should be deported from the United States on the grounds that they are terrorists. [2]
The Court is modeled after the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and was created by Pub. L. 104–132 (text) (PDF), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1531 – 1537.
The court has never received an application from the Attorney General for the removal of an alien terrorist, and has therefore conducted no proceedings. [3]
As of 2023: [4]
Judge | Judicial district | Date appointed | Term expiry |
---|---|---|---|
James Boasberg | District of Columbia | 2020 | 2025 |
Louis Guirola Jr. | Southern District of Mississippi | 2021 | 2026 |
Kenneth M. Karas | Southern District of New York | 2022 | 2027 |
Joan N. Ericksen | District of Minnesota | 2023 | 2028 |
seat vacant | – | – | – |
As of 2023: [4]
Judge | Judicial district | Date appointed | Term expiry |
---|---|---|---|
Alfred M. Wolin | District of New Jersey | 1996 | 2004 |
Earl Hamblin Carroll | District of Arizona | 1996 | 2006 |
David Dudley Dowd Jr. | Northern District of Ohio | 1996 | 2014 |
Michael Anthony Telesca | Western District of New York | 1996 | 2015 |
William Clark O'Kelley | Northern District of Georgia | 1996 | 2017 |
James Chris Cacheris | Eastern District of Virginia | 2005 | 2016 |
Harold Baker | Central District of Illinois | 2008 | 2018 |
Rosemary M. Collyer | District of Columbia | 2016 | 2020 |
James Parker Jones | Western District of Virginia | 2016 | 2021 |
Thomas B. Russell | Western District of Kentucky | 2016 | 2021 |
Anne C. Conway | Middle District of Florida | 2017 | 2022 |
Michael W. Mosman | District of Oregon | 2018 | 2023 |
Liam O'Grady | Eastern District of Virginia | 2021 | 2023 |
The chief justice of the United States is the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States and is the highest-ranking officer of the U.S. federal judiciary. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants plenary power to the president of the United States to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, appoint "Judges of the supreme Court", who serve until they die, resign, retire, or are impeached and convicted. The existence of a chief justice is only explicit in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 which states that the chief justice shall preside over the impeachment trial of the president; this has occurred three times, for Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and for Donald Trump’s first impeachment.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law 104–132 (text)(PDF), 110 Stat. 1214, enacted April 24, 1996, was introduced to the United States Congress in April 1995 as a Senate Bill. The bill was passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress in response to the bombings of the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute enacted on September 24, 1789, during the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, enacted as division C of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, made major changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). IIRAIRA's changes became effective on April 1, 1997.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is an administrative appellate body within the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the United States Department of Justice responsible for reviewing decisions of the U.S. immigration courts and certain actions of U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, U.S Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The BIA was established in 1940 after the Immigration and Naturalization Service was transferred from the United States Department of Labor to the Department of Justice.
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title IV: Protecting the Border aims to prevent terrorism in the USA through immigration regulations. The provisions of the title generally increase the difficulty of entering the country for those known to have, or suspected of having, terrorist intent.
The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice whose chief function is to conduct removal proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These administrative proceedings determine the removability and admissibility of individuals in the United States. As of January 19, 2023, there were sixty-eight immigration courts and three adjudication centers throughout the United States.
In the United States, removal proceedings are administrative proceedings to determine an individual's removability under federal immigration law. Removal proceedings are typically conducted in Immigration Court by an immigration judge (IJ).
Liam O'Grady is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In 2020, he was appointed as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and as a judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. He retired in August 2023.
Louis Guirola Jr. is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
James Parker Jones is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. He served as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 2015 to 2022. He served as a judge of the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court from 2016 to 2021.
Thomas Banister Russell is a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. He also served as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from 2015 to 2022. He served as a judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court from 2016 to 2021.
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.
Expedited removal is a process related to immigration enforcement in the United States where an alien is denied entry to and/or physically removed from the country, without going through the normal removal proceedings. The legal authority for expedited removal allows for its use against most unauthorized entrants who have been in the United States for less than two years. Its rollout so far has been restricted to people seeking admission and those who have been in the United States for 14 days or less, and excludes first-time violators from Mexico and Canada.
Reinstatement of removal refers to an immigration enforcement procedure in the United States in which a previously deported immigrant can be again deported for subsequent illegal entries with no required judicial review except in very limited circumstances.
Voluntary departure in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of the United States is a legal remedy available to certain aliens who have been placed in removal proceedings by the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or the now Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Withdrawal of application for admission is an option that U.S. Department of Homeland Security might offer to an Arriving Alien whereby the alien chooses to withdraw his or her application to enter the United States, and immediately departs the United States. Unlike an order of removal, a withdrawal of application for admission does not create a bar to future entry.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.
In the United States, federal impeachment is the process by which the House of Representatives charges the president, vice president, or another civil federal officer for alleged misconduct. The House can impeach an individual with a simple majority of the present members or other criteria adopted by the House according to Article One, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.