Trump's unusual legal gambit against Biden-era deportation rule pays off at Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for Texas and the Department of Justice to formally eliminate a 2024 immigration rule that let judges pause certain deportation cases. The Court’s ruling, issued without any noted dissents, allows an agreement that Texas and the Justice Department reached to go into effect, stripping away a procedure that had been used to temporarily halt deportations.
The Biden administration introduced the rule earlier this year to give immigration judges a tool called “administrative closure.” The measure let judges pause proceedings that were otherwise ongoing or that involved migrants seeking relief through other federal courts. Critics argued the rule gave the executive branch too much power to suspend deportations without sufficient oversight, and that it was enacted without the legal authority Congress had granted.
In June, Texas filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming the rule exceeded the Department of Justice’s statutory authority. The state sought to have the rule vacated and to prevent similar rules from being adopted in the future. The DOJ agreed with Texas and asked the district court that was hearing the case to strike down the rule. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a former appointee of President George W. Bush, granted the DOJ’s request and ordered the rule to be removed.
A lower court had already ruled against the rule, and the Texas‑DOJ agreement effectively put that ruling into action. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the agreement to stand confirms the elimination of the administrative‑closure provision, leaving the lower court’s earlier ruling in place.
Opponents of the rule, including several municipalities with large immigrant populations, sought to intervene. In August, Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio joined Centro Legal de la Raza, an immigrant‑rights advocacy group, in an effort to challenge the rule’s removal on appeal. The cities argued that ending the rule could expose residents to deportation, reduce city tax revenues, and give them standing to sue. Judge O’Connor rejected their arguments.
On Oct. 9, the three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the lower court’s judgment while their appeal proceeded. They accused Texas and the federal government of “egregious collusion” in eliminating the rule. Federal lawyers countered that the cities lacked the concrete injury required to establish legal standing in federal court.
The Supreme Court’s approval of the Texas‑DOJ agreement means the administrative‑closure rule will no longer be available to immigration judges. The decision, which was reached without dissent, affirms that the Biden administration’s 2024 policy was removed and that the rule’s removal will remain in effect as the appellate process continues.
