Supreme Court: Pauses Texas DOJ Deportation Agreement, Reinstates Biden Rule

• Three cities and an immigrant legal services group have asked the Supreme Court to temporarily halt an agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice.
• They seek to restore a Biden-era regulation, known as administrative closure, which allows immigration judges to suspend some deportation proceedings.
• The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) adopted this rule in 2024 to facilitate immigration relief for individuals like crime victims or witnesses.
• Texas sued in 2026, alleging the EOIR lacked authority, and Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor sided with Texas, striking down the rule.
• A Supreme Court ruling in the challengers' favor would temporarily reinstate the administrative closure rule during ongoing appeals in lower federal courts.

Should the High Court rule in favor of these challengers, it would lead to the temporary reinstatement of a specific Biden-era immigration regulation.

Three municipalities, alongside an organization dedicated to providing legal services for immigrants, have formally petitioned the Supreme Court. Their urgent request aims to secure a temporary halt to an arrangement forged between the state of Texas and the Department of Justice, an agreement which the petitioners have characterized as the outcome of "egregious collusion."

Should the High Court rule in favor of these challengers, it would lead to the temporary reinstatement of a specific Biden-era immigration regulation. This rule, which was established through a formal notice-and-comment rulemaking process, empowers immigration judges to put certain deportation proceedings on hold. Such suspensions are particularly crucial in scenarios where, for instance, a victim or witness of a crime is actively pursuing immigration relief, such as asylum.

The desired pause on the Texas DOJ deportation agreement would remain in effect while the challengers' ongoing appeal proceeds through the lower federal courts. This action by the Supreme Court is seen as a critical step to preserve a mechanism for vulnerable individuals during the lengthy legal process.

At the heart of this legal dispute is a provision known as "administrative closure," which was formally adopted in 2024. This particular rule was promulgated by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an entity operating under the umbrella of the Department of Justice.

The core function of this Biden-era immigration regulation is to grant immigration judges the discretion to temporarily suspend certain deportation proceedings. This mechanism is particularly vital for individuals who are seeking various forms of immigration relief, including asylum, especially when they are also crime victims or witnesses. The ability to achieve deportation proceedings suspension through administrative closure allows individuals to pursue their immigration claims without the immediate threat of removal, providing a critical pathway for vulnerable populations and streamlining the judicial process.

The origins of the current administrative closure rule challenge trace back to 2026, when Texas initiated legal action in the Northern District of Texas, specifically within its Wichita Falls division. The state's lawsuit contended that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) lacked the proper authority to implement the administrative closure rule.

This case was assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, who was the sole federal judge presiding in that particular division. Remarkably, within mere hours of Texas filing its complaint, the Department of Justice and the state jointly submitted a motion. They requested that Judge O’Connor issue a final judgment that would favor Texas.

Furthermore, the federal government itself urged the court to completely invalidate the rule and to issue a definitive order preventing the EOIR from ever adopting a similar regulation in the future. Judge Reed O’Connor's immigration ruling subsequently granted all of these requests, effectively striking down the rule and imposing a broad prohibition on future similar actions by the EOIR.

The current request before the Supreme Court represents a critical juncture in the ongoing administrative closure rule challenge. If the High Court sides with the cities and the legal services group, it would mean a temporary restoration of the regulation that permits deportation proceedings suspension.

This would allow immigration judges to once again utilize administrative closure while the broader legal battle unfolds in the lower federal courts. The outcome of this Supreme Court pause Texas DOJ deportation agreement is significant for the future of immigration proceedings, particularly for those seeking relief as victims or witnesses. A favorable decision for the challengers would not definitively resolve the underlying legal questions about the EOIR's authority, but it would provide a crucial interim measure, allowing the Biden-era immigration regulation to function during the appellate process.

Immigration lawyers and compliance officers should closely monitor the Supreme Court's decision on this challenge, as a ruling in favor of the challengers could reinstate the administrative closure rule, providing a mechanism for suspending certain deportation proceedings for clients seeking immigration relief.

Source: Original reporting via legal news wire