The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a dispute over a Biden-era immigration regulation that allowed judges to temporarily pause deportation proceedings, known as administrative closure.
The justices issued a one-sentence order without explanation, denying an emergency petition from a coalition of Democratic-led cities—including Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven—seeking to halt a June agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice. The agreement, approved by a federal judge, effectively ended the practice of administrative closure, which immigration judges had used for decades to clear certain deportation cases from their dockets.
Key details of the Supreme Court's decision
- The high court’s order came in response to an emergency appeal filed by the cities and the immigrant legal advocacy group Centro Legal de la Raza.
- The cities argued that the Texas-DOJ agreement improperly bypassed public rulemaking processes and harmed their interests by limiting protections for crime victims and neglected juveniles.
- The Justice Department had urged the justices to deny the appeal, asserting that the cities lacked legal standing to challenge the settlement and had not demonstrated immediate legal harm.
- The Supreme Court’s decision did not include any noted dissents, and no justices publicly opposed the order.
Background: The administrative closure policy and its end
Administrative closure has been a longstanding tool used by immigration judges to temporarily pause deportation cases. It was formally codified into regulation by the Biden administration in 2024, though the practice predates the current policy. Immigration judges relied on this discretion to manage caseloads, particularly when parallel legal proceedings—such as visa petitions or appeals of criminal convictions—could determine a person’s immigration status.
The practice became a focal point of contention under the Trump administration, which argued that administrative closure effectively allowed immigrants without legal status to remain in the U.S. indefinitely. Texas filed a lawsuit in June challenging the Biden-era regulation, and the DOJ agreed with the state that the rule should be set aside. A federal judge in Texas, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, approved the agreement the same day, leading to the immediate end of administrative closure as a discretionary tool.
Reactions and legal arguments
Supporters of administrative closure, including the cities and immigrant advocacy groups, contend that the practice provided critical protections for vulnerable individuals, such as crime victims and juveniles, by allowing them to pursue legal status without the threat of deportation. They argue that the Texas-DOJ agreement circumvented proper regulatory procedures and undermined humanitarian protections.
Opponents, including Texas and the Trump administration, maintain that administrative closure was expanded under Biden to an extent that amounted to a de facto amnesty, enabling individuals to avoid deportation indefinitely. They assert that the practice overwhelmed immigration courts and undermined enforcement of immigration laws.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves in place the agreement between Texas and the DOJ, effectively ending the use of administrative closure as a discretionary tool in immigration courts. The ruling does not address the broader legality of the Biden-era regulation, which remains subject to ongoing litigation.