Cities Seek SCOTUS Intervention: Overturn Administrative Closure Rule

• Democratic-led cities have asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a deal that quickly ended a Biden-era immigration rule.
• The rule, codified in 2024, allowed immigration judges to temporarily pause removal proceedings, a practice known as administrative closure.
• A Texas lawsuit, filed by the state and swiftly agreed to by the Department of Justice, led to Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor eliminating the rule nationwide within hours.
• The intervening cities and Centro Legal de la Raza argue this constitutes "rulemaking-by-collusive-acquiescence," bypassing proper administrative procedures.
• The Supreme Court's decision will impact the future of administrative closure in immigration proceedings and set a precedent for regulatory challenges involving alleged government collusion.

This development signals potential Supreme Court review of the administrative closure practice in immigration proceedings and the controversial 'rulemaking-by-collusive-acquiescence' method used to terminate it.

A coalition of Democratic-led municipalities has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a swift legal maneuver that eliminated a long-standing immigration practice. The cities, including Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Connecticut, along with legal services provider Centro Legal de la Raza, are challenging a deal struck between Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice. This agreement led to the rapid termination of a 2024 rule that codified the practice of administrative closure in immigration proceedings.

The controversy began when Texas initiated a lawsuit claiming the rule, which allows immigration judges to temporarily pause removal proceedings for individuals pursuing protections through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), exceeded the agency's authority. Texas further contended that this policy permitted individuals without legal status to remain in the U.S. indefinitely. Within hours of the lawsuit's filing, Texas and the Justice Department jointly requested the lower court to declare the 2024 rule unlawful and vacate it, also seeking to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing it or enacting similar regulations in the future.

Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee in the Northern District of Texas, swiftly granted the joint request on the same day the suit was filed. His ruling eliminated the 2024 rule nationwide and imposed a permanent restriction on the federal government from adopting comparable protections. The intervening cities and Centro Legal de la Raza argue that Judge O'Connor disregarded their pleas to defend the Biden-era rule, instead rushing to approve the agreement. They contend that if the judgment leads to increased deportations, as Texas suggested, it would diminish municipal income-tax revenue by removing taxpayers from their communities. Centro Legal de la Raza, which represents immigrants, also highlighted the substantial uncompensated legal work imposed by the judgment.

The cities and Centro Legal de la Raza characterize this case as an "egregious new extension" of a concerning legal phenomenon known as "rulemaking-by-collusive-acquiescence." This method allows a new administration, often hostile to a predecessor's regulation, to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) requirements by leveraging litigation brought by a sympathetic party. In this instance, the challengers assert that the government did not merely accept a convenient loss to undo agency action. Instead, they claim the government announced in advance its intention not to defend the disfavored regulation and then actively colluded with Texas from the moment the lawsuit was initiated.

The result, according to the intervenors, was the erasure of a significant regulation establishing important procedures in immigration courts within a single day. This occurred without meaningful judicial review, public participation, or adherence to the APA’s rulemaking requirements, which typically mandate specific procedures for amending or repealing rules. The cities emphasized that if this judgment is allowed to stand as a viable template, it would effectively nullify the Supreme Court's own precedent requiring agencies to use the same procedures for amending or repealing a rule as they did to issue it.

This situation echoes a prior attempt by the Supreme Court in 2021 to clarify whether interested states could intervene in cases where the federal government declines to defend an existing policy. The current appeal by the cities seeks to compel Supreme Court review of this immigration policy dispute, specifically challenging the method used to terminate the administrative closure rule.

The Supreme Court's decision on the cities' request for intervention holds significant implications for the future of administrative closure immigration proceedings and the broader landscape of regulatory challenges. Judge O'Connor's ruling not only struck down the 2024 rule but also permanently barred the federal government from implementing similar policies, creating a far-reaching impact on immigration policy. This development signals potential Supreme Court review of the administrative closure practice in immigration proceedings and the controversial 'rulemaking-by-collusive-acquiescence' method used to terminate it.

For non-citizens in removal proceedings, the ability of immigration judges to temporarily pause cases through administrative closure is a crucial tool, particularly when individuals are pursuing other forms of protection through USCIS. Advocates have also noted that this practice often facilitates cooperation from immigrant crime victims and witnesses with law enforcement. The elimination of this rule, therefore, could lead to more expedited deportations and increased pressure on individuals navigating complex immigration processes.

Beyond the immediate impact on immigration policy, this case presents a critical test for the integrity of the administrative rulemaking process. The cities' warning against allowing this case to become a template for achieving policy changes without proper review underscores the potential for a dangerous precedent. A Supreme Court intervention could either reinstate a key tool for pausing cases or permanently block it, while also setting a significant precedent for how future regulatory challenges, particularly those involving alleged governmental collusion, will be handled.

This development signals potential Supreme Court review of the administrative closure practice in immigration proceedings and the controversial 'rulemaking-by-collusive-acquiescence' method used to terminate it. Lawyers representing non-citizens in removal proceedings should closely monitor SCOTUS's decision on the cities' intervention, as it could reinstate or permanently block a key tool for pausing cases and set a precedent for future regulatory challenges.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News