The Trump administration, alongside the State of Texas, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve a consent agreement that nullifies a regulation introduced during the Biden administration. This regulation had granted immigration judges the authority to suspend specific deportation proceedings, a practice known as “administrative closure.” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued to the justices that the challengers’ request to pause a federal district court’s ruling was an attempt to transform a straightforward dispute into a broader critique of the court’s consent judgment approval. Texas concurred, insisting that accepting the challengers’ plea would reinstate a rule deemed unlawful by the district court, potentially causing both fiscal and sovereign harm to the state.
The regulation in question was established by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a branch of the Department of Justice, and was challenged by Texas in a federal court filing in June. The case landed before Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who was asked to overturn the rule and prevent the EOIR from enacting a similar measure in the future. Judge O’Connor sided with the State of Texas and the Department of Justice.
Efforts by three cities—Baltimore, New Haven, and Columbus—and Centro Legal de la Raza, a legal group for immigrants, to join the appeal and defend the rule were rejected by O’Connor. The challengers argued that the removal of the rule could result in cost burdens due to potential deportations of their residents, a claim that was dismissed due to a lack of standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit also declined to halt O’Connor’s decision, escalating the matter to the Supreme Court on October 9.
In asserting that the consent judgment was “indefensible,” the challengers to Judge O’Connor’s decision expressed concerns over the possibility of judicial processes being manipulated when agencies strategically avoid defending regulations by consenting to broad relief. However, according to [Sauer’s comments to the justices](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A500/430409/20261022153257048_Baltimore_v_Texas_stay_opp.pdf), the challengers do not hold the legal standing required for intervention on appeal. Texas similarly noted that even if the administrative-closure rule were reversed, any potential impact on the cities would depend on sequential, uncertain events.
Texas elaborated that allowing municipalities to challenge federal immigration policies whenever potential taxpayer variances occur would lead to a slew of judicial challenges to immigration measures on either side. The crux of the Trump administration and Texas’s argument rests on maintaining the district court’s consent judgment and dismissing challenges premised on hypothetical and indirect impacts on local governments.
For more detailed insights, please refer to the article on SCOTUSblog.