Supreme Court Lets Deal End Biden Immigration Rule

The Supreme Court, without recorded dissent, has permitted an agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice to take effect, ending a Biden-era immigration rule. The rule, established in 2024, formalized procedures for immigration judges to grant administrative closure, which allowed for the temporary halting of certain deportation proceedings, particularly for migrants pursuing other federal immigration relief.

Texas filed a lawsuit against the federal government in June, asserting that the rule was enacted without the proper legal authority. The Department of Justice subsequently agreed with Texas, requesting that the presiding judge vacate the rule and prohibit the future adoption of similar measures.

District Judge Reed O’Connor, appointed by President George W. Bush, granted this request on August 25. However, three cities with significant immigrant populations—Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio—along with the immigrant legal advocacy group Centro Legal de la Raza, attempted to intervene in the case. They argued that ending the rule could lead to deportations, reducing their tax revenues and providing them with legal standing to contest the agreement. Judge O'Connor rejected this argument.

In October, these cities and the advocacy group petitioned the Supreme Court to temporarily halt the lower court's ruling while their appeal was ongoing. They accused Texas and the federal government of engaging in “egregious collusion” to dismantle the Biden-era policy. Federal lawyers countered that the cities and their allies lacked the necessary legal standing, as they had not demonstrated the concrete injury required for federal courts to hear their claims.

The Supreme Court's decision upholds the lower court ruling that eliminates the administrative closure rule, thereby removing a procedure that allowed for the suspension of certain deportation cases.