In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court cleared the way for a Texas‑Justice Department pact that overturns a Biden‑era procedure for pausing deportation cases.
Key points
- The Supreme Court allowed the Texas‑DOJ agreement to stand, effectively ending the Biden-era administrative‑closure practice for deportation cases.
- Cities that sought to defend the rule were deemed to lack the legal standing required to challenge the agreement.
- Immigration advocates warn that the removal of the rule could increase deportations of vulnerable individuals, while Texas officials view the change as a public‑safety victory.
The Supreme Court, without noting any dissents, affirmed an agreement between the state of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice that eliminates a 2024 Biden administration rule allowing immigration judges to temporarily close certain deportation proceedings, a practice known as "administrative closure."
The Biden rule was intended to give judges the ability to pause removal actions when migrants were pursuing other forms of immigration relief, such as asylum or family‑based petitions, thereby protecting vulnerable individuals while their cases proceeded.
Court action
Texas sued the federal government in June, contending that the rule was adopted without proper legal authority. The Justice Department later asked the district court to vacate the rule, arguing that it should not set a precedent for future administrative actions.
Three cities with large immigrant populations—Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio—joined the advocacy group Centro Legal de la Raza in an effort to intervene and defend the rule on appeal. They argued that eliminating the procedure could lead to increased deportations and reduced tax revenues, but the Supreme Court declined to block the lower‑court judgment, finding the cities lacked concrete injury to establish standing.
Legal challenge
The decision leaves in place the district judge’s order that strips away the administrative‑closure mechanism, a move praised by Texas officials and criticized by immigrant‑rights groups, who warn that it could expose survivors of violence, children, and cooperating witnesses to heightened risk of removal.
Reader questions
What was the Biden-era rule that the Supreme Court allowed to be undone?
The rule, adopted in 2024, let immigration judges temporarily pause (or "administratively close") deportation proceedings when a migrant was pursuing other immigration relief, such as asylum or family petitions.
What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the Texas‑DOJ agreement?
The Court affirmed the agreement, letting it take effect and leaving in place a lower‑court order that eliminates the administrative‑closure procedure.
Why were the three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza unable to block the decision?
The Court found that the cities and the advocacy group had not demonstrated a concrete injury, which is required to establish legal standing to challenge the agreement.
Source: foxnews.com
