The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in an emergency appeal regarding a Biden-era immigration policy, leaving in place a nationwide restriction that bars immigration judges from pausing deportation proceedings while migrants pursue legal protections.
The high court issued a brief, unsigned order with no noted dissents, rejecting a last-ditch bid from three U.S. cities and a legal advocacy group to lift a lower court restriction while their broader appeal proceeds in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision preserves a consent agreement struck between the Trump administration and the state of Texas that dismantled a regulation allowing what is known as administrative closure.
The Origins of the Texas Lawsuit and the DOJ Agreement
The legal battle traces back to June 22, when Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging a 2024 regulation adopted by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an arm of the Justice Department. Texas argued that the rule exceeded federal immigration law by letting judges postpone removal proceedings indefinitely, effectively granting indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country.
Under the practice, immigration judges removed cases from active court calendars while individuals awaited decisions on humanitarian protections, visa applications, or other statuses that could permit them to remain in the United States.
Hours after the lawsuit was filed, the Department of Justice shifted its position from the Biden administration’s defense of the policy, joining Texas in a joint motion asking Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to invalidate the rule. O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee sitting in Texas, granted a final consent judgment that same day, throwing out the regulation nationwide and barring future administrations from enacting similar rules without congressional approval. After Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025, his administration announced it would no longer defend the immigration policy introduced by his predecessor, and the Justice Department office overseeing immigration courts stated it would not defend the Biden rule against the legal challenge.
Cities and Advocacy Groups Denounce Collusive Litigation
Following the lower court ruling, the cities of Baltimore, Maryland, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut—three cities with significant immigrant populations—participated in legal efforts alongside the legal group Centro Legal de la Raza to intervene in the case and defend the policy. Their attorneys accused the administration and Texas of engaging in friendly litigation to bypass standard federal rulemaking procedures. On October 9, the challengers came to the Supreme Court, calling the consent agreement the product of egregious collusion.
This dangerous abuse of the judicial process threatens the rule of law and sets a troubling precedent for dismantling federal policies without meaningful public participation or judicial scrutiny.
Applicants and co-counsel, via Newsweek
The challengers, with representation from Democracy Forward, contended that the accord bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally obligates federal agencies to issue public notice and invite comments prior to repealing regulations. Government statistics indicate that approximately 360,000 immigrants received administrative closure between 1990 and 2026. The cities warned that eliminating administrative closure could discourage immigrant crime victims from cooperating with police, increase deportations among residents, and harm their municipal revenue because taxpayers would be deported.
Solicitor General Urges Justices to Reject Emergency Appeal
Federal lawyers urged the Supreme Court to reject the emergency application, maintaining that the challenger cities lacked Article III standing to challenge the settlement and had not shown they would suffer immediate harm while their appeal advanced. In a Supreme Court filing, John Sauer asserted that the cities were leveraging their intervention request to mount a more expansive attack on the settlement, cautioning that the tribunal ought not to let applicants reverse the proper order of steps.
Texas informed the justices that freezing O’Connor’s decision would resurrect a regulation previously ruled unlawful by the district court, reinstate the fiscal and sovereign harms claimed by Texas, and disrupt a final judgment already endorsed by the primary litigants.
The Impact on Immigrants and Court Backlogs
Immigrant advocacy organizations warned that removing administrative closure strips essential safeguards from vulnerable populations. The cities and Centro Legal de la Raza stated that the administrative-closure process was intended to promote efficiency or protect due process rights. Historical figures indicate that the majority of immigrants whose matters are reinstated following administrative closure ultimately receive permission to remain in the country.
Without the ability to pause proceedings, immigration judges face pressure to move forward while separate applications are pending, even when immigrants are pursuing humanitarian protections or other lawful statuses through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The underlying appeal regarding whether the challengers can intervene to contest the June judgment restricting administrative closure continues before the Fifth Circuit.