By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an emergency request to reinstate immigration judges’ authority to administratively close deportation proceedings, allowing a nationwide restriction negotiated by President Donald Trump’s administration and Texas to remain in effect while litigation continues.
The justices issued a brief, unsigned order Oct. 27 denying the request from Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; New Haven, Connecticut; and Centro Legal de la Raza, an immigrant legal services organization. The court provided no explanation, and no justice publicly dissented.
The decision leaves intact a June federal court judgment eliminating a 2024 Biden administration regulation that authorized immigration judges to temporarily remove certain cases from active court dockets through a procedure known as administrative closure.
Administrative closure allows an immigration judge to pause removal proceedings without dismissing the underlying case. It has historically been used when an individual is pursuing a separate immigration benefit or awaiting resolution of another legal matter that could affect the outcome of deportation proceedings.
The practice can also help courts manage large caseloads by temporarily suspending proceedings that cannot be resolved immediately.
Texas challenged the regulation June 22, arguing that it exceeded the authority granted to immigration judges under federal law.
In its lawsuit, the state maintained that administrative closure could allow individuals without lawful immigration status to remain in the United States for extended periods without a final resolution of their cases.
Texas argued that the policy effectively permitted judges to grant indefinite relief from deportation without congressional authorization.
The Trump administration agreed with the state’s interpretation rather than defending the 2024 regulation.
Federal officials and Texas subsequently submitted a joint proposal asking U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Wichita Falls, Texas, to declare the rule unlawful.
O’Connor approved the agreement the same day the lawsuit was filed, issuing a judgment that blocked enforcement of the regulation nationwide. The judgment also restricted future regulations permitting administrative closure without an express statutory basis.
The unusual speed of the proceedings became a central issue in the subsequent legal challenge.
The three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza sought permission to intervene in the case, arguing that eliminating administrative closure would harm immigrant residents and disrupt local services.
They maintained that the procedure had helped crime victims, neglected children and other immigrants whose eligibility for legal relief depended on separate applications or proceedings.
The organizations also argued that the federal government had circumvented the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally establishes public notice and comment requirements for adopting or repealing federal regulations.
In their Supreme Court filing, the challengers accused the administration of using litigation with a politically aligned state to eliminate a regulation without following ordinary administrative procedures.
“The need for interim relief is underscored by the collusion that infected this suit from its inception,” they wrote.
The cities described the agreement as an effort to accomplish through the courts what would otherwise require a formal regulatory process.
O’Connor rejected their attempt to intervene, concluding that they had not established the legal standing necessary to participate in the original lawsuit.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently declined to suspend the judgment while the challengers pursued an appeal.
The coalition then asked the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis, arguing that continued enforcement of the restriction would cause immediate harm to affected immigrants and the communities where they reside.
The Justice Department opposed the request, maintaining that the cities and advocacy organization had not established a sufficient legal interest in the dispute.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the challengers were improperly attempting to use a dispute over their participation in the case to reopen the underlying judgment.
The administration and Texas also maintained that immigration judges lack statutory authority to suspend removal proceedings indefinitely.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves those restrictions in place but does not constitute a final ruling on the underlying legal dispute.
Administrative closure has been used in immigration courts for decades, although its availability has shifted under successive presidential administrations.
During Trump’s first term, federal officials attempted to limit immigration judges’ discretion to administratively close cases.
The Biden administration restored and formalized that authority through a regulation adopted in May 2024.
After Trump returned to office in January 2025, the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review announced that it would no longer defend the Biden administration’s regulation against a legal challenge.
The resulting agreement with Texas eliminated that regulation before the courts conducted a full adversarial examination of its legality.
According to federal statistics cited in The Washington Post’s coverage of Tuesday’s decision, approximately 360,000 immigration cases have been administratively closed since 1990.
Those cases were removed from active court schedules but not permanently dismissed, meaning they could potentially be reopened.
The June judgment has already affected immigration court proceedings nationwide.
An advisory published by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in September reported that some immigration courts were interpreting the judgment broadly, denying requests for administrative closure and returning previously closed cases to active dockets.
The restrictions do not automatically require deportation in every affected case. Individuals may still pursue applicable forms of immigration relief, and separate procedures for postponing or resolving proceedings may remain available when authorized by law.
However, the elimination of administrative closure removes a frequently used case-management option from immigration judges.
Tuesday’s order represents another legal development in the Trump administration’s efforts to accelerate immigration enforcement and restrict discretionary mechanisms that can delay removal proceedings.
The administration maintains that immigration courts must operate within the authority established by Congress, while the cities and immigrant advocates argue that the restriction interferes with fair case management and access to lawful immigration relief.
The underlying appeal remains pending before the 5th Circuit.
Until another court changes the existing judgment, immigration judges remain barred from using the administrative-closure authority established under the Biden administration’s 2024 regulation.
Original article
Comments