Federal judges across the United States 🇺🇸 are refusing most Department of Justice requests to pause urgent immigration-related cases during the ongoing government shutdown, keeping high-stakes litigation over detention, deportation, and Temporary Protected Status on the court calendar. Since the shutdown began on October 1, 2025, DOJ attorneys have sought delays in at least nine cases, citing a lapse in funding and the department’s shutdown plan. But judges have largely said no, pointing out that immigration enforcement and detention have not stopped—and the lawfulness of those actions must remain open to challenge even while agencies scale back other work.
In one closely watched case questioning detention without bail, Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff ruled that because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to detain and remove noncitizens during the government shutdown, the court must keep hearing claims about whether those detentions are legal. That ruling mirrors a growing pattern in federal courts: if the government keeps acting, courts will keep reviewing. The message is plain and immediate—people in custody cannot wait out a budget fight.
A separate deportation case, brought by Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Maryland, shows how tough the bench has been on the government’s bid to slow things down. Judge Paula Xinis refused to pause the proceedings, ordered DOJ to produce witnesses, and criticized the government for lack of readiness and transparency. She rejected the shutdown as a valid reason for delay, stressing the real-world harm that would result from stalled hearings. That order underscores a central theme of this moment: the shutdown does not freeze the consequences of immigration enforcement, so it should not freeze judicial checks on those actions either.
The DOJ has faced similar pushback in other immigration-related cases tied to the Trump administration’s policies. In litigation over the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans—affecting about 600,000 people—the 9th Circuit denied a request to pause the case. A federal judge in Massachusetts did grant a pause in a related suit, but that appears to be the exception so far. And in lawsuits over federal funding cuts to so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, Judge William Orrick rejected the DOJ’s motion to stay the case and insisted that the administration meet its original deadlines.
Adding to the confusion, the department’s own guidance has been inconsistent. While the official shutdown plan says civil litigation should be limited, the DOJ also issued instructions telling U.S. attorneys not to seek stays on civil immigration matters—a notable break from past shutdown practice. That internal split has raised questions among advocates and court watchers: if one arm of DOJ tells lawyers to keep going, why are other lawyers still asking judges for time? According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the uneven approach has left litigants uncertain about what to expect week to week.
Judicial Pushback and What’s Moving
Judges and advocacy groups argue that pausing court fights now would cause serious harm, especially for detained people and those facing fast loss of legal protections. When someone is detained, each day matters. When a family risks removal, delay can close doors that the law still leaves open.
On that record, courts have found that the balance of hardship points to continuing critical hearings despite the funding crunch. Most civil cases against the federal government are on hold in other areas of law, but immigration enforcement and criminal prosecutions continue. The U.S. Supreme Court remains open and is proceeding with its term.
These facts have shaped judicial reactions: if core operations that directly affect people’s liberty are still running, the related oversight should not be paused. As one court made clear, a government shutdown is not a free pass to continue detention without timely review.
The DOJ has leaned on its funding lapse to justify request after request, but the mismatch between continued enforcement and paused litigation has been hard to defend. Judges have treated immigration work as urgent by nature, especially where detention is involved or where a ruling could affect large groups, like TPS holders. That’s why immigration-related cases are getting special attention, even as other civil matters fall quiet until Congress restores funding.
Immigration Courts During the Shutdown
While federal district and appellate courts push cases forward, the immigration courts—run by DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—have taken a more expansive approach than in previous shutdowns.
- Under the current administration policy, EOIR is continuing detained cases and also keeping non-detained hearings on the calendar.
- In earlier shutdowns, non-detained hearings often stopped to conserve staff time; this time the docket is moving even as the backlog climbs toward four million cases.
For families and lawyers, that choice brings mixed results:
- Moving cases can speed long-delayed hearings.
- But it can also force people to appear without full access to government records or to counsel who need time to prepare amid agency slowdowns.
- Some hearings may still see last-minute changes if staff or records aren’t available.
- People who can’t afford a lawyer face greater risks when deadlines stand while parts of the system sputter.
Advocates say the current approach increases pressure on both sides without fixing structural problems that feed the backlog. The administration argues that public safety and border security require steady progress, shutdown or not. The courts, for now, are trying to thread that needle by keeping the most urgent matters on track and refusing blanket delays that would silence the courtroom while detention continues.
Stakes in TPS and Other High-Impact Litigation
The stakes are clear in TPS litigation. For Venezuelans and others with this status, a pause in cases that test the legality of ending protections can mean:
- falling out of lawful status
- losing work authorization
- facing removal
Judges in the 9th Circuit have treated that risk as too serious to put on hold. In Massachusetts, where a pause was granted, the court weighed the local record differently. That split outcome shows how shutdown-era discretion can play out case by case.
For readers seeking the official framework, the department’s shutdown guidance is posted on the U.S. Department of Justice contingency plans page. It outlines which functions must continue during a funding lapse, including activities tied to safety and property protection.
The current dispute in courtrooms is not about those essentials; it’s about whether the government can keep detaining, deporting, and cutting funds while arguing that it lacks the resources to defend those actions in front of a judge.
Timelines, Consequences, and What’s Next
What happens next will hinge on two timelines that rarely align:
- The pace of budget talks in Congress.
- The tight deadlines baked into immigration law and detention rules.
People held by ICE cannot press pause on their liberty interests. Families with active removal orders cannot set aside filing windows while they wait for Congress. Courts have shown little interest in stretching those windows just because the DOJ is understaffed during the shutdown.
For now, the trend is steady:
- Judges are denying most stay requests tied to the government shutdown, with pointed orders that remind the DOJ that enforcement and accountability must move together.
- Immigration courts are pressing ahead with both detained and non-detained dockets.
- High-impact appeals, including TPS cases, continue—sometimes on split tracks across circuits, but with real momentum.
The law is still in force. Detention still occurs. Families still face removal. Courts, increasingly, are saying that means the work of judging must go on.
In a shutdown that has already strained agencies, immigration remains the area where the gap between policy and people is the most visible. The law continues to apply, enforcement continues, and the judiciary is acting to ensure that accountability and review proceed despite a lapse in funding.
This Article in a Nutshell
After the October 1, 2025 government shutdown, the Department of Justice requested delays in at least nine immigration-related cases, citing funding lapses and its contingency plan. Federal judges have largely refused those requests, emphasizing that ICE and other agencies continue detention and deportation operations, so courts must preserve timely review. High-profile rulings include Judge Brianna Fuller Mircheff’s order to proceed with detention claims and Judge Paula Xinis’s refusal to pause a Maryland deportation case. EOIR is maintaining both detained and non-detained dockets, even as immigration court backlogs approach four million cases. TPS litigation affecting around 600,000 Venezuelans has continued in several circuits, with mixed rulings. The DOJ’s internal guidance has been inconsistent—some offices instruct attorneys not to seek stays—creating uncertainty. Courts argue that pauses would cause real harm to detained people and those facing removal, and thus have kept critical immigration litigation on the calendar despite the funding crisis. The dispute highlights the tension between ongoing enforcement and constrained resources, leaving urgent human consequences for families, workers, and TPS holders while judges insist accountability proceed.
