The Supreme Court is being asked to temporarily pause an agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice that challengers describe as the product of “egregious collusion.” The agreement affects a Biden-era regulation allowing immigration judges to suspend certain deportation proceedings when a crime victim or witness is seeking immigration relief, such as asylum.
The Legal Challenge
Three cities with significant immigrant populations – Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio – along with Centro Legal de la Raza, a legal services organization, petitioned the Supreme Court for intervention after losing at the appellate level. They argue that the agreement between Texas and the DOJ undermines the administrative-closure rule.
The dispute began in 2026 when Texas sued in the Wichita Falls division of the Northern District of Texas, claiming the Executive Office for Immigration Review lacked authority to adopt the administrative-closure rule. Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor initially ruled in favor of Texas, granting the DOJ’s request to nullify the rule and block EOIR from adopting a similar rule in the future.
The challengers sought to join the case to defend the rule, but O’Connor denied their request, citing lack of standing. He rejected their argument that the elimination of the rule would cost them money because their taxpayers are likely to be deported. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the consent judgment, prompting the challengers to seek Supreme Court intervention.
Procedural History and Arguments
Lawyer Joshua Salzman of Democracy Forward, representing the challengers, called the consent judgment “indefensible,” warning that the agreement could allow agencies to bypass federal requirements for rulemaking by abandoning disfavored regulations and immediately yielding to nationwide relief requests.
Salzman noted that five years ago, the Supreme Court had granted review to decide a related question – whether states should be allowed to intervene to defend a rule when the federal government has opted not to do so – but ultimately never weighed in on that issue, instead dismissing the case without deciding it. There is a substantial continuing need, for this Court to address whether litigation tactics can be substituted for the … requirement that a federal regulation adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking may be rescinded only through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The administrative-closure rule provides what is known as “administrative closure,” which allows immigration judges to suspend some deportation proceedings while the challengers’ appeal in the lower federal courts is ongoing.
