Supreme Court won’t restore rule letting immigration judges shelve deportation cases
The order leaves in place a Texas-Justice Department agreement that ended the practice known as administrative closure.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to restore a Biden-era rule that allowed immigration judges to temporarily set aside deportation cases, handing the Trump administration and Texas a win.
In a brief, unsigned order with no noted dissents, the justices refused a request from three cities and a legal services group to pause an agreement between Texas and the Justice Department that ended the practice, SCOTUSblog reported.
What administrative closure is
The practice, known as administrative closure, gave immigration judges discretion to remove a case from their active calendar without deciding whether the person could be deported. Judges used it, for example, when someone was pursuing another form of legal status or humanitarian protection.
Administrative closure did not grant legal status or permanently end a case. Closed cases could later be reopened. About 360,000 immigrants received administrative closure between 1990 and 2026, according to government statistics.
Texas argued that the rule let immigration judges “effectively grant indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country,” Reuters reported.
A back-and-forth history
During Trump’s first term, the attorney general found that immigration judges lacked the authority to indefinitely suspend cases through administrative closure. The Biden administration restored the practice and codified it in a 2024 regulation.
On June 22, Texas sued the Justice Department in federal court in Wichita Falls, calling the rule part of an effort by the previous administration to undermine immigration law. The case went to Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, the only federal judge in that division.
The 2024 regulation, formally titled Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings, replaced a 2020 rule adopted during Trump’s first term. Texas argued that immigration judges had no authority under federal law to suspend cases indefinitely. In an unusual turn, the Trump administration agreed with the state that the rule was unlawful rather than defending it.
Hours later, Texas and the Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, jointly asked the court to throw out the rule. O’Connor approved the agreement the same day.
Critics called the arrangement collusion. The cities and the legal services group that challenged it argued that eliminating administrative closure could endanger crime victims, neglected children and others seeking protection.
O’Connor rejected their request to intervene, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block the agreement. The challengers then filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on Oct. 9.
What it means
For now, immigration judges cannot use administrative closure as the 2024 regulation allowed. The Supreme Court’s order did not rule on whether the practice is lawful or whether judges have any remaining authority to close cases outside a formal rule.
The agreement also bars federal officials from issuing similar regulations without express authorization from Congress, according to the district court’s findings.
The decision is the latest in a series of immigration wins for the administration at the high court. Earlier this month, the justices agreed to review another administration immigration policy, which is set to be argued later this term.
Immigration courts face a backlog of millions of cases. Supporters of the change say it will force cases to be resolved rather than left on hold for years. Opponents say it will add to the strain on the courts and push more people toward deportation before they can pursue legal options.
