U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place the end of administrative closure of deportation cases
Washington — The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to restore immigration judges' power to temporarily shelve deportation cases, a practice known as administrative closure, leaving in place the agreement between President Donald Trump's administration and the state of Texas that bars it.
The justices rejected an emergency request from the cities of Baltimore, New Haven (Connecticut) and Columbus (Ohio), along with legal services provider Centro Legal de la Raza, to halt the agreement for now while litigation continues. The decision, a brief order with no explanation, drew no public dissent, according to Reuters.
Administrative closure allowed judges to take cases off their active dockets without dismissing them, for example when the same person had another pending proceeding that could prevent removal, such as a visa petition or an appeal of a criminal conviction. The tool was used for decades and applied in hundreds of thousands of cases.
The Trump administration and Texas argue the practice allowed people without legal status to remain in the country indefinitely, which they describe as a backdoor amnesty. Its supporters, by contrast, say it helps courts manage their dockets and protects people awaiting decisions in related proceedings, including crime victims and neglected children.
The dispute stems from a 2024 rule by Biden's administration that codified administrative closure; in 2025, Trump's Justice Department announced it would not defend it.
On June 22, the day Texas sued over the procedure, the state and the federal government asked U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of Wichita Falls to approve an agreement declaring the Biden rule unlawful; O'Connor did so that day, blocking it nationwide. Later, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the agreement on hold while O'Connor's decision is appealed.
The cities and Centro Legal de la Raza argued before the Supreme Court that the administration circumvented the federal law governing agency procedures by using litigation that, in their view, was manufactured together with Texas, an ideologically aligned state, to eliminate a regulation it disliked. 'The need for interim relief is underscored by the collusion that infected this suit from its inception,' they wrote in their filing.
Photo: A Lo Claro Archive
Source: Reuters