The Supreme Court has declined to revive a regulation from the Biden administration that would allow immigration judges to exercise “administrative closure” to suspend certain deportation proceedings. In a recent order, the Court refused to grant a request from multiple cities and a legal service group aiming to halt an agreement that nullified the regulation.
Administrative closure, established by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), permitted judges to delay deportations in specific situations, such as when an individual seeks asylum or relief through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The validity of this rule was challenged when Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court, asserting that EOIR lacked the authority to implement decisions contrary to immigration law’s strictures on removability.
Within hours of the lawsuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Texas jointly requested Judge Reed O’Connor to issue a final judgment against the regulation, leading to its nullification. This move by the DOJ surprised many, as it hinted at a possible strategic retreat from defending the regulation.
Consequently, the cities of Baltimore, New Haven, and Columbus, alongside Centro Legal de la Raza, sought to intervene and defend the regulation’s validity through an emergency motion. However, they were denied this opportunity, with the court deciding they lacked legal standing. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit saw a continuation of this stance, as the appellate court refused to reinstate the suspension of the proceedings.
Critics of the judicial outcomes, including attorney Joshua Salzman from Democracy Forward, argue that sidelining the regulation might enable agencies to circumvent federal administrative law. On the other hand, both the DOJ and Texas have defended the actions taken as necessary to prevent what they perceive as regulatory overreach.
The recent decision by the Supreme Court to reject the challenge, without comment, leaves the DOJ and Texas agreement intact and adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing discussions surrounding U.S. immigration policies and their judicial interpretations. For further reading, see the full article on SCOTUSblog.