Supreme Court lets Texas-DOJ deal ending Biden immigration court rule stand

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied an emergency appeal from Democratic-led cities. The cities wanted the justices to block a deal between Texas and the Trump administration that ended a longstanding immigration court practice ¹. The justices gave no explanation, and no dissents were noted ¹.

The practice is called administrative closure. It lets immigration judges temporarily pause removal (deportation) proceedings under certain conditions, such as when a person is pursuing protections through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ¹. Advocates say it often helped law enforcement win cooperation from immigrant crime victims and witnesses ¹. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department, put the practice into a 2024 rule ¹².

How the deal came together

Texas sued in June in federal court in Wichita Falls, arguing the agency lacked the authority to adopt the rule ². Texas argued the rule let people without legal status stay in the country indefinitely ¹.

Hours after the filing, Texas and the Justice Department jointly asked the court to declare the rule unlawful and throw it out ¹. They also asked the court to bar the department from enforcing it or writing similar rules later ¹. The same day, Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed. He eliminated the rule nationwide and permanently restricted the federal government from adopting similar protections ¹.

From Channel GOPTalarico: Elon Musk is trying to buy Texas Senate seatJames Talarico · 139 plays · captioned, with the source named

Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut, along with the legal group Centro Legal de la Raza, tried to join the case to defend the rule. O'Connor denied that request, finding they lacked standing, or a legal stake in the case ². The Fifth Circuit appeals court declined to pause his ruling, and the challengers went to the Supreme Court on Oct. 9 ².

What each side argued

The cities said a Texas judge ignored their request to defend the rule and rushed to approve the agreement ¹. They said that if the ruling led to more deportations, their revenue would suffer because their taxpayers would be deported ¹. Centro Legal de la Raza said the judgment imposed substantial uncompensated legal work on the group ¹.

The challengers also said that if a deal reached through "open collusion" stays in effect, any agency could dodge federal administrative law by refusing to defend a rule and quickly accepting nationwide relief ². The Administrative Procedure Act is the law that sets the steps agencies must follow to write or repeal rules ¹.

egregious new extension of this phenomenon

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the cities' injuries were too "indirect" and "attenuated" to give them standing ². The Trump administration told the court that the cities and the legal group lacked standing and that objections to the deal's merits were no substitute for it ¹.

What happens next

The Supreme Court's order only refused emergency relief. It did not rule on whether the deal was lawful, and the appeal over the cities' right to intervene can continue ¹². For now the 2024 rule stays wiped out nationwide, and the Justice Department is barred from adopting a similar one ¹.

That matters because of how it was done. The pattern is a new administration helping a friendly state get a court order that erases a predecessor's rule, without the usual public review. Critics say that shortcut is a way around the law, and the Supreme Court has now left it in place for the time being. The ruling comes one week before the Nov. 3 midterms.

The Record

1. Jan 1, 2024The Executive Office for Immigration Review adopted a rule codifying administrative closure in immigration court, according to the 2026 reporting ¹².
2. Jun 1, 2026Texas sued and, the same day, reached a deal with the Justice Department; Judge Reed O'Connor entered judgment ending the rule nationwide (month approximate per the report that Texas sued in June) ¹².
3. Oct 9, 2026Baltimore, New Haven, Columbus and Centro Legal de la Raza asked the Supreme Court to step in after the Fifth Circuit declined to pause the ruling ².
4. Oct 27, 2026The Supreme Court denied the emergency appeal with no noted dissents ¹.

Sources

1. Courthouse News, “Supreme Court won't block Texas-DOJ deal unraveling immigration court rule” (2026-10-27). courthousenews.com/supreme-court-wont-block-texas-doj-deal-u
2. SCOTUSblog, “Trump administration and Texas urge court to leave their agreement on deportation proceedings in place” (2026-10-22). scotusblog.com/2026/10/trump-administration-and-texas-urge-c

Found an error? Tell the newsroom. Corrections are noted at the top of the story.