The Supreme Court, with no noted dissents, has allowed an agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice ending a Biden-era immigration rule to go into effect.
The Biden administration adopted the rule in 2024, formally establishing procedures for immigration judges to temporarily pause certain deportation proceedings through a practice known as “administrative closure,” including when migrants were pursuing immigration relief through other federal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s move leaves in place a lower court ruling eliminating that rule, stripping away a procedure that allowed certain deportation cases to be put on hold.
Texas sued the federal government in June, arguing that the rule was adopted without proper legal authority.
The Department of Justice agreed with Texas, asking the judge overseeing the case to vacate the rule and prevent similar rules from being adopted in the future.
JUDGE WHO APOLOGIZED TO ACCUSED WOULD-BE TRUMP ASSASSIN LIGHTS UP DOJ IN HUNTER BIDEN FBI CASE
Opponents accused Texas and the Justice Department of colluding to eliminate the Biden-era rule, arguing that the two sides worked together despite being on opposite sides of the lawsuit.
On the same day the DOJ made its request, District Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, granted it.
TRUMP-APPOINTED JUDGE SLAMS DOOR ON DOJ AS COURT LOSSES PILE UP DAYS AHEAD OF MIDTERMS’
In August, however, three cities with large immigrant populations — Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio — joined with Centro Legal de la Raza, an immigrant legal advocacy group, in an effort to intervene in the case and defend the Biden-era rule on appeal.
The cities argued that eliminating the rule could lead to residents being deported, reducing their tax revenues and giving them legal standing to challenge the agreement. O’Connor rejected that argument.
MAMDANI BLASTS FEDS FOR WAGING ‘CAMPAIGN OF VIOLENCE AND TERROR’ AGAINST NYC’S IMMIGRANTS
On Oct. 9, the three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the lower court’s judgment while their appeal proceeded, accusing Texas and the federal government of engaging in “egregious collusion” to eliminate the Biden-era rule.
Federal lawyers argued that the cities and their allies lacked legal standing to challenge the agreement because they had not demonstrated the concrete injury required for a federal court to consider their claims.
