Supreme Court Lets Texas and DOJ Agreement on Immigration Rule Stand
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency request from a coalition of Democratic-led cities to stop a deal between Texas and the Department of Justice. The agreement ended a 2024 immigration rule that allowed judges to temporarily suspend removal proceedings under certain conditions.
Without explanation and with no noted dissents, the justices refused to block the agreement. The cities and legal advocates had urged the high court to step in, warning against using friendly litigation to achieve policy changes without standard review processes.
How the Dispute Unfolded in Court
The controversy centers on a 2024 rule that codified a practice known as administrative closure, which let immigration judges pause deportation cases while individuals pursued protections through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Two years after the Executive Office for Immigration Review adopted the rule, Texas filed a lawsuit arguing the policy exceeded agency authority and allowed individuals without legal status to remain in the U.S. indefinitely.
Hours after the filing, Texas and the Department of Justice jointly asked a lower court to declare the rule unlawful and vacate it. Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed to eliminate the 2024 rule nationwide and permanently restricted the federal government from adopting similar regulations in the future.
- Rule adopted allowing immigration judges to temporarily pause removal proceedings.
- Texas sued the federal government, claiming the policy exceeded agency authority.
- Texas and DOJ asked the lower court to declare the rule unlawful and vacate it.
- Supreme Court denied an emergency appeal from cities seeking to block the deal.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Arguments from Cities and Advocates
Legal services provider Centro Legal de la Raza and the cities of Baltimore, Maryland, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut, moved to intervene in the case. They argued that the judgment would result in increased deportations that could harm municipal revenue through the loss of taxpayers. Centro Legal de la Raza also stated that the ruling imposed substantial uncompensated legal work on the group.
The participants described the agreement as an example of rulemaking-by-collusive acquiescence, where an administration hostile to a predecessor’s regulation leverages a friendly lawsuit to bypass Administrative Procedure Act requirements. However, the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court not to interfere, arguing the cities and the legal group lacked standing to intervene.
What This Means for Affected People
The refusal by the Supreme Court leaves the lower court’s judgment intact, meaning the administrative closure rule remains eliminated nationwide. Individuals who hoped to use temporary pauses in removal proceedings while pursuing other protections face a landscape without this procedural tool. No new filing deadlines or specific instructions for individuals were outlined in the court’s order.
Anyone navigating removal proceedings or seeking immigration protections should stay closely informed about ongoing policy changes. Consulting a qualified immigration attorney can help individuals understand their options and assess how the removal of this rule impacts their specific case.
What this means: our conclusions
- RiskAdministrative Closure Rule Removed
The 2024 rule allowing immigration judges to pause removals is eliminated nationwide, removing a tool used during administrative reviews.
- Good newsTexas Secures Policy Objective
Texas achieved its goal of ending a policy it argued allowed indefinite stays for individuals without legal status.
- RiskMunicipalities Lose Intervenor Bid
Cities seeking to defend the rule were turned away, highlighting the strict standing hurdles for outside governments in federal litigation.
- What to watchMonitor Future Policy Shifts
Legal observers and advocates may watch for similar administrative challenges and agency rule changes under future litigation strategies.
- What to doConsult an Immigration Attorney
Individuals facing removal proceedings should speak with legal counsel to evaluate their options following the elimination of the rule.
| Party | Position in the Case |
|---|---|
| Texas | Sued to eliminate the 2024 rule, arguing it exceeded agency authority. |
| Department of Justice | Joined Texas in asking the lower court to declare the rule unlawful. |
| Cities & Centro Legal de la Raza | Moved to intervene to defend the rule, warning of increased deportations. |
| U.S. Supreme Court | Denied an emergency appeal from cities without noting dissents. |
Source: Courthouse News Service
Find a lawyer for this issue
Federal rules apply nationwide, but your options depend on your state and situation. Browse attorneys by practice area, then pick your state.
This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 27, 2026.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Supreme Court Refuses to Reopen Rule Pausing Certain Deportation Cases
The Supreme Court left in place an agreement between Texas and the federal government that eliminated a rule allowing immigration judges to pause deportation cases.
Department of Justice Asks Appeals Court to Void Legal Aid Injunction for Children
The government urged an appeals panel to overturn an order restoring legal aid funding for unaccompanied undocumented children, arguing the case belongs elsewhere.
Trump administration and Texas ask Supreme Court to keep deportation‑case pause agreement
The administration and Texas urged the Supreme Court to leave a consent agreement that ended a rule letting judges suspend deportation cases in place, arguing challengers lack standing.
Federal Judge Halts DHS Voter‑Fraud Sweep in Nine States Ahead of Midterms
A federal judge in Oakland issued a preliminary injunction stopping DHS field operations targeting alleged unlawful voters in nine states until Election Day, citing flawed data that could sweep in U.S. citizens.
Instacart to Pay $5 Million Settlement Over Citizenship and National Origin Hiring Discrimination
The DOJ and EEOC secured a $5 million deal with Instacart for allegedly favoring temporary‑visa workers over U.S. citizens and American‑origin applicants.