justices declined to restore a Biden-era immigration regulation. The unsigned order left in place restrictions on a practice allowing immigration judges to temporarily suspend certain deportation proceedings. The decision rejected an emergency request from three cities and an immigrant legal services organization seeking to revive the regulation. The applicants included Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio, New Haven,
Connecticut, and Centro Legal de la Raza, according to court filings. Their request sought to suspend a lower-court judgment arising from an agreement between Texas and the federal government. The Supreme Court’s docket confirms that Justice Alito referred the application to the full court, which denied it October 27. The refusal leaves the existing judgment
operative, but does not supply a Supreme Court ruling resolving every underlying legal argument. No justice publicly noted a dissent, according to reporting on the brief order, which did not explain the court’s reasoning. At issue is administrative closure, a procedure that removes certain cases from active immigration court calendars without finally resolving them. The
Biden administration’s Justice Department established the disputed regulation in 2024 through the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
It allowed immigration judges to pause proceedings while immigrants pursued humanitarian protections
or other potential legal status through federal agencies. Supporters describe that flexibility as a way to coordinate overlapping proceedings and avoid removal before another agency considers available relief. Opponents argue that extended administrative closure can prevent immigration cases from reaching a decision and undermine enforcement of federal law. Texas challenged the regulation, and the Trump
administration agreed with the state that the rule exceeded lawful authority. The parties jointly sought a consent judgment declaring the challenged regulations unlawful and preventing their enforcement, according to its filing. The district court granted that request, vacated the 2024 rule, and restricted substantially similar regulations absent an express statutory basis. For Republicans favoring stronger
immigration enforcement, Tuesday’s outcome preserves that judgment while challengers continue contesting their exclusion from the case. The dispute therefore involves both the regulation’s validity and whether the cities and legal organization may intervene to defend it. According to the federal government’s Supreme Court response, the applicants moved to intervene approximately six weeks after judgment was
entered. The district court denied intervention, concluding that the applicants had not established the concrete injury required to pursue their appeal.
The Fifth Circuit subsequently declined to suspend the judgment or summarily reverse
the intervention decision, the federal response recounts. The applicants then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to stop the judgment from remaining effective. The cities argued that ending administrative closure could increase removals, diminish tax revenue, and discourage cooperation with local law enforcement. Their concerns included immigrants who might qualify for
protections associated with assisting authorities in the investigation or prosecution of crimes. Centro Legal argued that changes affecting its clients would increase demands on staff and require additional legal resources. The federal government disputed those claims, arguing that the asserted injuries depended on speculative events rather than demonstrated immediate harm. It also maintained that additional
workload alone did not establish the organization’s standing to challenge the judgment. Those were the administration’s legal arguments, rather than explanations adopted in a written opinion accompanying the Supreme Court’s denial. The government also identified an important limitation on the judgment’s effect, distinguishing future administrative closures from cases already paused. Its filing stated that the
judgment applies prospectively and does not require previously closed cases to return to active calendars.
That distinction limits claims that Tuesday’s order automatically reopened every previously suspended
case or immediately ordered particular individuals deported. The Supreme Court denied a request for temporary intervention; its action did not determine the immigration status of individual applicants, SCOTUS Blog reported. The cities and organization also challenged how Texas and the administration obtained the judgment, arguing their agreement bypassed public rulemaking.
