The Supreme Court refused to bring back a Biden-era rule that let immigration judges put deportation cases on hold, a rule Texas says worked as “de facto amnesty.”
Story Highlights
- On Tuesday, October 27, the Supreme Court turned down a request to restore a 2024 rule that let immigration judges pause some deportation cases.
- The order was one sentence long, unsigned, and had no noted dissents.
- Texas sued over the rule in June, and a federal judge struck it down the same day after Texas and the Justice Department agreed to settle.
- Three Democratic-led cities and an immigrant legal group called the deal “egregious collusion” and tried to revive the rule.
- The settlement stays in place while the cities’ appeal goes on.
- The cities said they would lose tax money if residents were deported.
What the Supreme Court Did and Why It Matters
The Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned order that declined to restore a Biden-era rule letting immigration judges pause removal cases in some situations. Texas had argued the rule worked like “de facto amnesty” because it let judges delay deportation cases, in some cases for years. The order leaves in place a settlement between Texas and the Justice Department that wiped the rule off the books. The Court did not explain its reasons, which is common for emergency requests, and it did not rule on the full case. But the practical result is clear: immigration judges cannot use that rule to put deportation cases on ice.
In this case judges were using administrative closure to pause, deportation cases, leaving them hanging open with no enforcement.
Those pauses prevent the process, moving forward to final deportation orders, essentially allowing the illegals to stay in the United States while…
— Sean (@SeanALarabee) October 27, 2026
The rule dealt with “administrative closure.” That is a tool that lets an immigration judge set a case aside without deciding it. Supporters said it helped crime victims, witnesses and neglected children seek legal status from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that handles visas and green cards, without being deported while they waited. Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; New Haven, Connecticut; and Centro Legal de la Raza, an immigrant legal aid group, asked the justices to bring it back. The cities said the rule affects hundreds of thousands of cases. Their request did not carry the day.
What the Lower Court Found About Agency Power
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued over the rule in June in federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas. The rule came from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department office that runs the immigration courts. Within hours of the filing, Texas and the Justice Department asked Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to enter a final judgment for Texas. He agreed the same day. His order said the rule went beyond what the law allows, and that no law lets immigration judges close cases indefinitely. He threw out the rule and barred the office from writing a similar one without clear approval from Congress.
Texas argued that federal law expects judges to decide whether a person can be deported, not to put off that decision for years. The state said the rule turned a simple scheduling tool into “indefinite permission to remain in the United States” for people who would otherwise face deportation. The district court agreed that Congress never gave the office the power to create that kind of system.
How This Affects Border Enforcement and Court Backlogs
With the rule blocked, deportation cases must move toward a decision instead of sitting idle. Supporters of the ruling say that is how the law is supposed to work. They argue that only Congress, not a federal agency, can create broad exceptions that slow down removals.
The cities saw it differently. They said they would lose tax money if residents were deported. They also warned that crime victims without legal status might stop helping police if their deportation cases were reopened. Their lawyers argued that the Trump administration and Texas worked together to kill the rule in court instead of going through the normal public rulemaking process. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s top lawyer at the Supreme Court, answered that the cities had no legal right to sue, because the rule covers immigrants in court, not cities. Texas said it had a real dispute because the rule was still in effect when it sued.
What Comes Next in the Legal Process
The emergency order does not end the case. Judge O’Connor ruled that the cities had no standing, meaning no legal right to join the lawsuit, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause the settlement while the cities appeal. That appeal continues. Sauer told the justices that immigrants themselves could still try to challenge the end of the rule in court.
The settlement stands while that appeal goes on. If Congress wants immigration judges to have the power to pause cases, it can pass a law that says so, with clear limits. Until then, immigration judges are expected to decide the cases in front of them.
Sources:
scotusblog.com, reuters.com, inquirer.com, supremecourt.gov