In a pivotal decision, the US Supreme Court has declined an emergency appeal to reinstate a federal regulation from 2024 that allowed immigration judges to use administrative closure to pause deportation proceedings. This practice had enabled judges to temporarily set aside cases deemed low priority while individuals awaited judgments on separate visa or relief applications, such as U visas for crime victims or family-based petitions.
The Court’s one-sentence, unsigned order in City of Baltimore v. Texas followed a consent judgment by US District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, which nullified the rule. This judgment arose after a legal move by Texas and the US Department of Justice, both of whom sought a consent judgment to vacate the rule nationwide, barring similar regulations without explicit congressional authorization.
The cities of Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven, alongside Centro Legal de la Raza, had attempted to intervene and secure a stay of Judge O’Connor’s ruling. Their earlier efforts were thwarted by refusals from both the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The coalition’s appeal to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was also unsuccessful as Justice Alito referred the application to the full Court, which ultimately denied the emergency stay request.
In arguments submitted to the Court, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that the applicants did not possess the requisite legal standing and that their case fell outside the statute’s zone of interests. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that the administrative closure allowed for “indefinite non-adjudication” and questioned the validity of the cities’ claimed harms.
The City of Baltimore and its partners have criticized the DOJ and Texas’s coordinated effort to vacate the administrative closure regulation, asserting that it undermines public participation and due legal process. According to further reports, the denial of the stay application leaves over 300,000 administratively closed cases subject to reopening.
The controversy adds to ongoing changes within the immigration courts. As the underlying appeal continues in the Fifth Circuit, the legal community closely watches the implications for executive actions affecting immigration judges and ongoing asylum claims.