The Trump administration and Texas urged the Supreme Court on October 22, 2026, to leave in place a consent agreement that vacated a Biden-era rule on deportation proceedings. The filing opposes an emergency request by three cities and an immigrant-services group to pause the lower court judgment.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the challengers were trying to turn a dispute over their ability to join the case into a broader attack on the judgment. He described the request as an effort to “improperly leverage a clear-cut dispute” over intervention into “a far-reaching attack” on the court’s approval of the agreement.
The cities filed their Supreme Court application on October 9, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit declined to pause the judgment while they appealed. The administration and the state say the challengers lack standing to intervene.
The justices are being asked whether the judgment should remain in effect during the dispute. That is not the same question as whether the rule was lawful.
The judgment vacated the rule, but left closed cases off the calendar
Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor entered the final judgment on June 22, 2026, vacating the regulation. The state filed its suit in Wichita Falls in June, arguing that the Executive Office for Immigration Review lacked authority to adopt the rule.
The Department of Justice and the state asked O’Connor for judgment in the state’s favor on the day the case was filed. The department also asked him to eliminate the rule and bar the agency from adopting a similar one in the future. O’Connor granted the requests, ending the case within hours of its filing.
The regulation, adopted in 2024, allowed immigration judges to take some deportation cases off their active calendars temporarily. It could apply when a crime victim or witness sought immigration relief, including asylum, while an appeal proceeded in lower federal court.
Administrative closure does not decide the removal case. Nor does it grant immigration status, approve an application or permanently end the case. The cities have cited neglected juveniles as one example of people who could use the process while seeking relief.
The judgment did not order immigration judges to return cases that had already been administratively closed to their calendars. Sauer pointed to that limit in opposing the emergency request.
Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio, sought to join the litigation to defend the rule on appeal. Centro Legal de la Raza, an immigrant legal-services group, joined their request. O’Connor rejected it, ruling that the challengers lacked standing. He also rejected the cities’ claim that removing the rule could cost them money because local taxpayers might be deported.
The parties contest the challengers’ right to intervene
The administration and the state argue the cities and the group cannot challenge a judgment in a case they were not allowed to join. The state says pausing the judgment would revive a rule it had challenged and unsettle the outcome accepted by the original parties.
“would revive a rule the district court declared unlawful, renew the fiscal and sovereign injuries Texas alleged, and unsettle a final judgment accepted by the actual parties”
The state’s filing said the cities’ claimed injury depended on a sequence of events, not a direct effect of the judgment. A closed case would first have to return to an immigration judge’s calendar. The immigrant would then have to lose, receive a final removal order and be deported by the Department of Homeland Security.
The state also argued that letting municipalities sue over possible taxpayer effects could prompt challenges to federal immigration policies adopted by either political party.
The challengers see the case differently. In their Supreme Court application, they said the department had announced it would not defend a disfavored regulation, then agreed with the state’s request for relief from the outset of the lawsuit. They argued that allowing such an agreement to stand could let agencies avoid the federal law governing administrative procedures.
“The adversity requirement is not a formality”
The challengers also called the judgment “indefensible.” Joshua Salzman of the Democracy Forward Foundation, which represents them and has filed dozens of lawsuits against the administration, used the same characterization.
The Justice Department had earlier told the district court that allowing judges to pause cases indefinitely could undermine Congress’s direction. It argued that pauses could last “often for decades, if not forever.” The state’s earlier suit likewise argued that the regulation “drastically expands” administrative closure and could give people indefinite permission to remain in the country.
Alito can decide the emergency request or send it to the full court
The application went to Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency matters from the state by default. He can decide the request himself or refer it to the full court for a vote.
Responses were due by 4 p.m. EDT on October 22, 2026. The administration and the state filed their opposition that afternoon. As of October 2026, the pending request concerns the effect of the district court judgment during the appeal, not a final ruling on the regulation’s legality.
The cities’ request followed the 5th Circuit’s refusal to pause O’Connor’s decision. The Supreme Court’s next action will address whether that judgment remains in force while the parties continue to dispute the challengers’ standing.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
