Supreme Court Refuses to Reopen Rule Pausing Certain Deportation Cases

The Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to reinstate a regulation from the Executive Office for Immigration Review that permitted immigration judges to pause certain deportation proceedings. The brief, unsigned order leaves in place an agreement between the state of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice that threw out the administrative closure rule.

The justices rejected an emergency request from three cities—Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio—along with the legal services organization Centro Legal de la Raza. The group sought to pause the lower court judgment ending the rule while appealing the decision.

How the Administrative Closure Rule Worked

The regulation in question was adopted in 2024 by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, an agency within the Department of Justice. Known as administrative closure, the policy allowed immigration judges to temporarily suspend certain deportation proceedings. This pause enabled individuals facing removal to seek other legal remedies, such as applying for asylum or victim protection through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a separate federal agency.

The Legal Challenge and Lower Court Orders

In June, Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court in Wichita Falls, where the case was assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor. The state argued that the agency lacked the legal authority to establish administrative closure, claiming that federal law requires immigration judges to decide whether a person is removable at the end of a proceeding.

Just hours after the lawsuit was filed, both the Department of Justice and Texas asked Judge O’Connor to enter a final judgment favoring the state. The Department of Justice asked the judge to throw out the regulation entirely and forbid the agency from adopting a similar rule in the future. Judge O’Connor granted the requests on the same day.

On Aug. 7, the three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza filed an emergency motion to join the lawsuit so they could defend the rule on appeal. Judge O’Connor denied the motion, ruling that they lacked legal standing to participate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit subsequently refused to block the consent judgment while their appeal proceeded.

The Supreme Court Battle and Final Ruling

On Oct. 9, the cities and the immigrant rights group brought their challenge to the Supreme Court. Their attorney, Joshua Salzman of Democracy Forward, argued that permitting the consent agreement to stand could allow any agency to bypass federal law by refusing to defend a challenged regulation and accepting nationwide relief.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to reject the request, arguing the challengers were improperly using a dispute over joining the case to launch a broader legal attack. Texas also argued that pausing the lower court ruling would revive an unlawful rule and unsettle a final judgment accepted by the original parties. Four days after the case was fully briefed, the Supreme Court denied the emergency request without noted dissents or written explanation.

What This Means for Immigrants in Removal Proceedings

Because the Supreme Court declined to step in, immigration judges can no longer use the 2024 administrative closure rule to pause deportation proceedings. Individuals who are facing deportation and need time to seek asylum or other relief with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services can no longer count on this specific procedural pause to delay their cases.

For individuals currently in immigration proceedings, understanding how court orders impact available relief options is critical. Consulting a qualified immigration attorney can help individuals evaluate their legal options, navigate court proceedings, and determine potential defenses against removal under current rules.

This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog 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.