WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to restore a federal regulation allowing immigration judges to temporarily pause deportation proceedings, leaving in place a nationwide court order that eliminates a longstanding procedural tool used to give immigrants time to pursue legal relief.
In a one-sentence order in City of Baltimore v. Texas, the justices denied an emergency request from three cities and an immigrant legal services organization seeking to suspend a lower court judgment invalidating the Biden administration’s administrative closure regulation.
The Court provided no explanation for its decision, and no justice publicly dissented. The ruling does not resolve whether the regulation was lawful or whether the lower court properly approved its elimination.
Administrative closure allows immigration judges to temporarily remove cases from their active dockets without dismissing the underlying removal proceedings.
The practice has been used for decades to give immigrants time to pursue visas, humanitarian protections or other forms of immigration relief through separate federal agencies.
For example, individuals seeking visas available to certain crime victims or protections for abused, abandoned or neglected children may need decisions from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services before their removal proceedings can be resolved.
Administrative closure has allowed judges to pause those proceedings while the separate applications are considered.
The Biden administration formalized the practice through a regulation establishing standards for administrative closure by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Texas subsequently challenged the regulation, arguing that federal immigration law did not authorize immigration judges to suspend removal proceedings indefinitely.
After the Trump administration took office, the Justice Department announced that it would no longer defend the regulation against legal challenges.
Texas filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the Justice Department immediately joined the state in requesting a judgment invalidating the rule.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor approved the agreement on the same day the lawsuit was filed.
The resulting consent judgment vacated the regulation nationwide and permanently prohibited federal immigration authorities from enforcing it.
The judgment also barred the government from adopting comparable administrative closure regulations without express congressional authorization.
Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven and Oakland-based Centro Legal de la Raza subsequently sought to intervene to defend the regulation.
In their emergency application to the Supreme Court, the applicants accused Texas and the federal government of using coordinated litigation to eliminate a regulation without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirements for repealing federal rules.
The applicants argued that the government had bypassed the public notice-and-comment process ordinarily required when an agency rescinds a regulation.
They also challenged the breadth of the consent judgment, arguing that it invalidated the entire regulation even though Texas had challenged only its administrative closure provisions.
According to the application, the regulation contained additional provisions addressing other aspects of immigration court procedure and included a clause allowing unaffected portions to remain in effect.
The applicants further argued that the district court entered the judgment without an adversarial examination of whether the regulation violated federal law.
Their filing cited concerns previously raised by Supreme Court justices about federal agencies using litigation with aligned parties to eliminate regulations without undergoing the ordinary rulemaking process.
The cities maintained that administrative closure serves important public safety interests by allowing immigrant crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with law enforcement while pursuing immigration protections.
They argued that eliminating the procedure could discourage individuals from reporting crimes or assisting investigations if they face removal before their applications are resolved.
Centro Legal de la Raza argued that the judgment would impose additional burdens on its legal services operations by returning previously paused removal proceedings to active immigration court dockets.
The organization also contended that the judgment undermined protections it had obtained through earlier litigation challenging restrictions on administrative closure.
The district court denied the applicants’ request to intervene, finding that they lacked standing to participate in the lawsuit.
The applicants challenged that determination, arguing that the court had accepted Texas’ claims of financial harm from continued immigration while rejecting the cities’ claims of financial harm resulting from deportations.
They also maintained that Centro Legal faced direct financial and operational injuries from the elimination of administrative closure.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to suspend the district court’s judgment while the appeal proceeded.
The applicants then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to stay the judgment until the dispute over intervention and the regulation’s validity could be resolved.
Texas and the federal government opposed the application, arguing that the applicants lacked standing and had not demonstrated entitlement to emergency relief.
The government maintained that the administrative closure regulation exceeded the authority granted to immigration judges under federal law.
Texas argued that the practice allowed immigrants without lawful status to remain in the United States for extended periods without resolution of their removal cases.
The applicants disputed that characterization, emphasizing that administrative closure does not grant immigration status, dismiss removal proceedings or permanently protect anyone from deportation.
Instead, they argued, it allows immigration judges to manage proceedings while other agencies consider applications that may affect whether removal is appropriate.
The Supreme Court’s denial leaves the district court’s judgment in effect while the applicants’ appeal continues in the Fifth Circuit.
The Supreme Court docket identifies the case as No. 26A500 and records that Justice Samuel Alito referred the emergency application to the full Court, which denied the requested stay.
The order does not address the applicants’ allegations of improper coordination between Texas and the Justice Department or determine whether the regulation was authorized by federal immigration law.
The Fifth Circuit appeal remains pending, with the district court’s nationwide judgment continuing to bar enforcement of the administrative closure regulation.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
