The Supreme Court on October 27 declined to restore a Biden-era rule that let Immigration judgeAn attorney appointed by the Attorney General who presides over removal proceedings in immigration court, part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.See it in the glossary pause deportation cases, leaving in place a Texas court judgment that ended the practice known as administrative closure. The justices issued a one-sentence order without explanation, the Detroit News reported. The order does not end the legal fight, which continues in the lower courts.
What administrative closure is
Administrative closure lets an immigration judge take a case off the active calendar without deciding it. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department office that runs the immigration courts, adopted a rule in 2024 giving judges that authority in some situations. One example is a crime victim or witness who is seeking other immigration relief, SCOTUSblog reported.
How the rule ended in Texas
Texas sued in federal court in Wichita Falls in June, arguing the immigration office had no power to adopt the rule. The state said the rule let judges “effectively grant indefinite amnesty” to people in the country illegally, according to the Detroit News.
The Justice Department and Texas filed a joint agreement on June 22, the same day as the lawsuit. Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor approved it that day, threw out the rule and barred the office from adopting a similar one. The administration had earlier said it would not defend the rule.
Who challenged the agreement
Three cities, Baltimore, New Haven and Columbus, and Centro Legal de la Raza, a legal services group, asked to join the case so they could defend the rule on appeal. O’Connor denied the request, ruling they had no legal right to sue. He rejected the cities’ argument that losing the rule would cost them money because taxpayers could be deported.
The Fifth Circuit declined to pause his decision. The challengers then asked the Supreme Court on October 9 to step in, calling the judgment “indefensible” and describing the case as collusion between the government and a friendly state.
What the government and Texas argued
The Solicitor General and Texas both said the challengers lack standing to appeal. In its Supreme Court filing, the administration also noted that the agreement does not require cases already closed to return to a judge’s calendar. Texas argued the cities’ claimed harm depended on a long chain of uncertain events.
What the order does and does not settle
The justices were asked only whether to pause the district court’s judgment while the appeal goes on. Because the order gave no reasons, it does not say how the Court viewed the collusion argument or the standing question. The challengers’ appeal remains pending in the Fifth Circuit.
For now, the 2024 rule stays vacated. To see how a case reaches an immigration judge in the first place, read what immigration court notices mean. Another recent Texas-region ruling on immigration court practice is the Fifth Circuit’s decision on bond hearings.