Supreme Court Asked to Halt Texas‑DOJ Deal on Deportation Case Closures
On October 15, 2026, three cities—Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio—joined a legal services group, Centro Legal de la Raza, in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop a consent judgment between Texas and the Department of Justice. The judgment, entered by Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas, ended a 2024 regulation that let immigration judges “administratively close” cases, effectively pausing deportation when a victim or witness needs immigration relief.
Background of the dispute
In 2024 the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) adopted the administrative‑closure rule through notice‑and‑comment rulemaking. Texas sued in 2026, claiming EOIR lacked authority to adopt the rule. Within hours the DOJ and Texas asked Judge O’Connor for a final judgment in Texas’s favor, which he granted, also ordering the rule thrown out and barring future similar rules.
- EOIR adopts administrative‑closure rule via notice‑and‑comment
- Texas files lawsuit in Northern District of Texas
- Judge O’Connor enters consent judgment ending the rule
- 5th Circuit denies request to block judgment
- Cities and Centro Legal de la Raza petition Supreme Court
Source: SCOTUSblog
Challenges and standing issues
The three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza sought to intervene on appeal, arguing the rule’s removal would harm their immigrant populations and cost taxpayers. Judge O’Connor denied them, saying they lacked standing—specifically, the cities could not show a concrete legal right to sue.
Supreme Court petition
After the Fifth Circuit refused to block the consent judgment, the challengers filed a petition for certiorari. Lawyer Joshua Salzman of Democracy Forward called the judgment “indefensible” and warned that allowing such “open collusion” could let agencies sidestep formal rulemaking requirements.
What this means for ordinary people
If the Supreme Court lets the judgment stand, the administrative‑closure rule stays dead, meaning immigration judges can no longer pause deportation proceedings for victims or witnesses seeking relief. Immigrants facing removal who rely on that pause may have fewer protections. Conversely, if the Court pauses the judgment, the rule could be reinstated while the underlying legal fight continues, restoring the ability to suspend certain cases.
People currently in removal proceedings should monitor any court filings and consider consulting an immigration attorney to understand how the presence or absence of the rule could affect their case. No specific deadlines were mentioned in the filing.
Talking to a lawyer can help clarify whether you or a family member might benefit from the administrative‑closure practice and what steps to take if the rule is unavailable.
What this means: our conclusions
- RiskPotential loss of case‑closure protection
If the Court lets the judgment stand, immigrants may lose a tool that pauses deportations while they seek relief, increasing removal risk.
- What to watchOpportunity for judicial review
A Supreme Court pause could reinstate the rule, giving affected immigrants a temporary safeguard during ongoing appeals.
- RiskImpact on local governments
Cities with large immigrant populations could face higher costs and community impacts without the rule’s protective pause.
- ContextSignal to agencies about rulemaking
The case highlights the need for agencies to follow formal notice‑and‑comment procedures before changing immigration policy.
- What to doCheck your case status
Immigrants in removal proceedings should verify whether administrative closure is currently available and seek legal advice accordingly.
- denied law.justia.com
- turned down supremecourt.gov
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 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 16, 2026.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Supreme Court Considers Emergency Request Over Texas and DOJ Deportation Agreement
Three cities and an immigrant legal services group ask the Supreme Court to pause an agreement between Texas and the DOJ affecting deportation proceedings.
Supreme Court to Review How Much Aid to Extremist Groups Bars Migrants From Entry
The Supreme Court will decide whether providing everyday essentials like food bars an immigrant from the U.S. under federal material support rules.
Federal Policy Cuts Strip Medicaid Coverage From Refugees and Trafficking Victims
New federal rules under the 2025 policy law have cut Medicaid for refugees and trafficking victims, leaving hundreds of thousands without health coverage.
Federal Judges Question DHS Request for IRS Addresses of Noncitizen Taxpayers
A First Circuit panel heard DHS argue ICE can obtain IRS address data on noncitizen taxpayers, while judges raised privacy concerns and questioned the legal basis.
States claim federal government continues to tie FEMA aid to immigration enforcement
A coalition of states says the government is violating court orders by tying nearly $1 billion in emergency funds to immigration enforcement conditions.