The justices rejected an emergency request from three Democratic-led cities and an immigrant legal services organization, allowing a nationwide court order restricting administrative closure of deportation cases to remain in effect.
By Lucretia Hughes
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to intervene in a legal battle over a Biden-era immigration regulation, leaving in place a federal court order blocking a policy that allowed immigration judges to temporarily suspend certain deportation proceedings.
The Oct. 27 decision came in City of Baltimore, Maryland, et al. v. Texas, et al., Supreme Court docket No. 26A500.
The justices denied an emergency application seeking to suspend a June 22 ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas.
That ruling invalidated a 2024 Biden administration regulation permitting immigration judges to use a procedure known as administrative closure to temporarily remove certain deportation cases from active court dockets.
The Supreme Court issued its decision without a written explanation or publicly noted dissent.
The action does not constitute a final ruling on the regulation’s legality. However, it allows the lower court’s nationwide order to remain in effect while litigation continues.
Supreme Court Rejects Emergency Application
According to the Supreme Court’s official docket, the emergency application was submitted Oct. 9 and referred to Justice Samuel Alito.
Alito requested responses from the federal government and Texas, which were filed Oct. 22.
The applicants submitted a reply Oct. 23.
On Oct. 27, the Supreme Court denied the application.
The official order states:
“Application (26A500) for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”
The order leaves intact the district court’s June judgment without independently resolving the underlying legal dispute.
The applicants may continue pursuing their appeal through the federal courts.
Texas Challenged Biden Administration Immigration Rule
The dispute began June 22 when Texas filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s 2024 regulation titled Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings.
The regulation was published May 29, 2024, at 89 Federal Register 46742.
It established procedures allowing immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to administratively close certain immigration proceedings.
Administrative closure temporarily removes a case from the active docket without issuing a final deportation order or permanently terminating the proceeding.
The procedure had been used in various forms for decades.
Under the Biden administration’s regulation, judges could use administrative closure when circumstances justified temporarily suspending proceedings, including situations involving pending immigration applications or related legal matters.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton challenged the regulation, arguing that federal immigration law did not authorize judges to indefinitely suspend deportation proceedings.
Texas contended that the practice could allow noncitizens without lawful immigration status to remain in the United States for extended periods while their cases remained unresolved.
Trump Administration Agreed With Texas
The lawsuit took an unusual procedural turn when the Trump administration’s Justice Department agreed with Texas rather than defending the Biden-era regulation.
On the same day Texas filed its lawsuit, federal officials joined the state in requesting a judgment invalidating the rule.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor approved the agreement June 22.
The case, State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice, was filed under docket No. 7:26-cv-00070-O in the Northern District of Texas.
The court vacated the regulation nationwide and entered a permanent injunction restricting federal officials from implementing the challenged rule or adopting a substantially similar regulation without appropriate statutory authority.
O’Connor concluded that the administrative closure provisions exceeded the authority granted by federal immigration law.
The decision represented a significant change in immigration court procedures and aligned with the Trump administration’s broader effort to limit delays in removal proceedings.
Three Cities Attempted to Defend the Regulation
Following the district court’s decision, three Democratic-led cities sought permission to intervene in the case.
The cities were Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Connecticut.
They were joined by Centro Legal de la Raza, a California-based nonprofit organization providing immigration legal services.
The applicants argued that the Biden-era regulation served legitimate purposes by allowing immigration judges to temporarily pause deportation proceedings while other legal matters were resolved.
They cited cases involving crime victims seeking immigration protection, children eligible for special immigration classifications and individuals with pending applications that could affect their eligibility to remain in the country.
The cities also argued that removing administrative closure could discourage immigrant crime victims from cooperating with police investigations.
According to their legal filings, the ability to temporarily suspend removal proceedings could provide time for qualifying individuals to pursue relief available under federal law.
Cities Accuse Texas and Justice Department of Improper Agreement
The cities and legal organization also challenged the way the regulation was invalidated.
Their attorneys argued that Texas and the Trump administration used coordinated litigation to eliminate an existing federal regulation without following the ordinary administrative rulemaking process.
They contended that the agreement effectively bypassed procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, which generally requires public notice and an opportunity for comment when agencies repeal or substantially change regulations.
The applicants characterized the arrangement as improper cooperation between parties that shared the same desired legal outcome.
Texas and the Justice Department disputed the applicants’ arguments and opposed their request for emergency relief.
The federal government argued that the cities lacked sufficient legal standing to challenge the agreement and had not demonstrated the immediate harm necessary for a stay.
The Supreme Court’s denial did not resolve those competing allegations.
Federal Appeals Court Previously Declined to Intervene
Before approaching the Supreme Court, the cities and Centro Legal de la Raza sought relief through the federal appeals process.
O’Connor denied their request to intervene in the district court proceedings.
They appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals under case No. 26-10794.
On Sept. 29, the appeals court declined to suspend the district court’s judgment while the appeal continued.
The applicants subsequently sought emergency intervention from the Supreme Court.
Tuesday’s denial leaves the lower court judgment in place but does not prevent further consideration of the underlying appeal.
What Administrative Closure Means for Deportation Cases
Administrative closure has historically been used to manage immigration court dockets when temporarily suspending proceedings could allow related legal issues to be resolved.
For example, an individual facing deportation might have a pending petition for lawful immigration status, an unresolved criminal appeal or another proceeding that could affect the outcome of the removal case.
Administrative closure allowed immigration judges to temporarily remove such cases from active consideration.
The process did not itself grant citizenship, permanent residency or lawful immigration status.
However, Texas argued that repeated or prolonged administrative closure could effectively delay deportation indefinitely.
Supporters of the procedure maintained that it helped judges manage heavy caseloads while protecting access to legal remedies established by Congress.
The disagreement centers on whether immigration judges possess sufficient statutory authority to suspend proceedings through administrative closure.
The June 22 district court order concluded that the Biden-era regulation exceeded that authority.
Impact on Immigration Enforcement
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene allows the Trump administration to continue operating under the district court’s restrictions.
Immigration judges cannot rely on the invalidated 2024 regulation to administratively close removal proceedings.
The decision does not eliminate every legal mechanism for delaying or contesting deportation.
Noncitizens may still pursue applicable forms of relief, appeals, continuances or other procedures authorized by immigration law.
However, the nationwide invalidation removes the administrative closure authority established under the Biden administration’s rule.
The development comes as federal immigration authorities continue efforts to enforce removal orders and reduce delays in immigration proceedings.
Supreme Court Has Not Issued a Final Ruling
Although the Supreme Court’s action has immediate consequences, it is important to distinguish an emergency order from a final decision on the merits.
The justices did not hear oral arguments or issue a full opinion determining whether the Biden administration’s regulation violated federal immigration law.
Instead, they declined to suspend the existing district court judgment while litigation continues.
The underlying legal questions, including whether the cities may intervene and whether the regulation was properly invalidated, remain subject to further proceedings.
The case could eventually return to the Supreme Court through the ordinary appeals process.
Immigration Court Dispute Remains Unresolved
The legal fight illustrates the continuing disagreement over how much authority immigration judges should possess to manage deportation proceedings.
Texas and the Trump administration maintain that administrative closure can create prolonged delays that undermine enforcement of federal immigration law.
The cities and immigration advocates argue that the procedure provides flexibility for individuals pursuing legal remedies and assists immigration courts in managing complicated cases.
For now, the federal district court’s nationwide judgment remains controlling.
The Supreme Court’s Oct. 27 denial leaves the Biden-era administrative closure regulation blocked, allowing the Trump administration’s restrictions on that procedure to remain in place while the broader legal dispute continues.
The next developments will depend on proceedings before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and any subsequent Supreme Court review.
Original article
Comments