Supreme Court Refuses to Restore Biden Rule That Shelved Deportations

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to bring back a Biden-era rule that let immigration judges set aside some deportation cases, leaving in place a deal between Texas and the Trump administration that wiped the rule off the books, according to SCOTUSblog and Reuters.

The justices turned down an emergency request from three Democratic-led cities and an immigrant legal services group in a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, SCOTUSblog reported. There were no noted dissents, according to both SCOTUSblog and Bloomberg Law.

JUST IN: US Supreme Court denies immigration judges the power to shelve deportation cases https://t.co/dAxO3MFVRb pic.twitter.com/44mj4MEvbE

— Reuters Legal (@ReutersLegal) October 27, 2026

The practice at the center of the fight is known as “administrative closure.” The Washington Post reported that it has allowed immigration judges to use their discretion to close thousands of deportation cases each year. SCOTUSblog explained that the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review wrote the practice into a formal regulation in 2024, allowing judges to pause some proceedings, for example while a crime victim or witness seeks relief such as asylum from a separate agency.

How Texas ended the rule

Texas sued over the rule in June, arguing the immigration office never had the authority to adopt it, according to SCOTUSblog. The state called the regulation “one part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s campaign to undermine our immigration laws,” and argued that federal law requires an immigration judge to decide at the end of a case whether a person is removable from the United States, SCOTUSblog reported.

Within hours of the filing, Texas and the Justice Department jointly asked Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to rule for the state, throw out the rule nationwide and bar the immigration office from adopting a similar rule in the future, according to SCOTUSblog. O’Connor granted those requests the same day, SCOTUSblog reported.

Texas told the justices that pausing O’Connor’s ruling “would revive a rule the district court declared unlawful” and unsettle a final judgment, according to SCOTUSblog.

Democratic cities cried “collusion”

Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio, along with the group Centro Legal de la Raza, tried to step into the case to defend the rule after neither Texas nor the federal government would, SCOTUSblog reported. O’Connor ruled they lacked standing, and he rejected the cities’ argument that ending the rule would cost them money because their taxpayers would be deported, according to SCOTUSblog. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to block the deal, the outlet reported.

In their Supreme Court filing, the challengers called the agreement the product of “egregious collusion,” according to SCOTUSblog. Bloomberg Law reported that opponents described the settlement as a “collusive” ploy to eliminate a federal regulation without going through the proper procedures.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to leave the agreement in place, arguing the challengers were trying to turn a “clear-cut dispute” over whether they could join the case into “a far-reaching attack on the merits,” SCOTUSblog reported.

What it means

Reuters reported that the order keeps in place an agreement that bars the once-common practice of temporarily postponing deportation cases. The fight over whether the cities can join the case continues on appeal, but the rule stays off the books in the meantime, according to SCOTUSblog.

For the Trump administration, the order is a win in its push to see deportation cases decided rather than set aside. Bloomberg Law reported that the disputed regulation let judges pause deportation proceedings in some circumstances, such as when a person is separately seeking legal protection.

Sources

• SCOTUSblog
• SCOTUSblog on X
• Bloomberg Law
• The Washington Post
• Reuters Legal on X

Reporting by Daily Beltway.