In a recent development, three cities along with a legal services group for immigrants have turned to the Supreme Court to halt an agreement struck between Texas and the Department of Justice regarding deportation proceedings. This legal maneuver by Baltimore, New Haven, Columbus, and Centro Legal de la Raza is anchored in their allegation of “egregious collusion” between Texas and the DOJ. They argue that the value of the administrative closure regulation, set by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in 2024, needs restoration as it permits immigration judges to defer certain deportation actions under specified conditions.
The contested agreement emerged when Texas independently filed a lawsuit in 2026 against the EOIR’s rule, claiming that the agency lacked the authority to implement such a regulation. Subsequently, a rapid sequence of legal filings sought a final judgment in Texas’s favor, leading Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to annul the rule. Efforts by the cities and Centro Legal de la Raza to defend the rule were rebuffed by O’Connor, who pointed to their lack of legal standing, arguing that the financial impact on their taxpayers due to potential deportations was insufficient for such claims.
The challengers remained undaunted even as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit refused to block the consent judgment or reinstate the rule pending appeal. They have now requested the Supreme Court’s intervention. Joshua Salzman of Democracy Forward has criticized the judgment as “indefensible,” cautioning that its acceptance could allow federal agencies to sidestep procedural requirements through strategic litigation and compromise the integrity of rulemaking processes.
The significance of this case is heightened by the Supreme Court’s previous reluctance to clarify whether states possess the right to defend regulations the federal government declines to support, despite reviewing a similar issue five years prior. As the justices deliberate on the current request, the broader question remains unresolved, raising concerns among legal observers about the potential precedent this could establish for rulemaking and agency accountability.
Further details on the case can be found in a detailed report.