Supreme Court: Texas-DOJ Immigration Rule Agreement Stands

• The Supreme Court declined to block a deal between Texas and the Department of Justice, effectively ending the 2024 administrative closure immigration rule.
• The rule, adopted by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, allowed immigration judges to temporarily pause removal proceedings for individuals pursuing protections through USCIS.
• Texas sued, arguing the rule exceeded agency authority and permitted individuals without legal status to remain in the U.S. indefinitely.
• Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor eliminated the rule nationwide and permanently restricted the federal government from adopting similar regulations.
• Critics, including intervening cities and legal aid groups, characterized the case as an "egregious new extension" of "rulemaking-by-collusive acquiescence."

They characterized the case as an "egregious new extension" of what is known as "rulemaking-by-collusive acquiescence," a process where a new administration, disfavoring a predecessor's regulation, uses friendly litigation to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined an emergency request from several Democratic-led cities, effectively allowing a controversial agreement between the state of Texas and the Department of Justice to stand. This decision, issued without explanation or noted dissents on Tuesday, prevents the blocking of a deal that terminates a long-standing immigration practice. The cities had urged the high court to intervene, expressing concerns that the case could establish a precedent for leveraging judicial rulings to implement policy changes without undergoing the necessary administrative review processes.

The agreement in question was reached swiftly after Texas initiated a lawsuit challenging a Biden-era immigration regulation. Within hours of filing its complaint, Texas and the Department of Justice jointly sought a lower court's declaration that the 2024 rule was unlawful and should be vacated. This rapid legal maneuver culminated in a judicial sign-off on the same day the lawsuit was filed, effectively unraveling the policy.

At the heart of this legal dispute was a 2024 rule, adopted by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which formalized a practice known as administrative closure. This rule permitted immigration judges to temporarily halt removal proceedings under specific circumstances, particularly when individuals were actively pursuing other forms of protection through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Advocates for the rule highlighted its practical benefits, noting that it often facilitated cooperation from immigrant crime victims and witnesses with law enforcement agencies.

Texas filed its lawsuit two years after the rule's adoption, contending that the policy overstepped the agency's statutory authority. The state argued that the administrative closure rule allowed individuals lacking legal status to remain within the United States indefinitely, thereby undermining immigration enforcement. The joint request to the lower court not only sought to invalidate the 2024 rule but also aimed to permanently prohibit 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 presiding in the Northern District of Texas, swiftly granted the joint request. His ruling eliminated the 2024 administrative closure rule nationwide and imposed a permanent restriction on the federal government's ability to adopt comparable protections in the future. This rapid judicial action prompted legal services provider Centro Legal de la Raza, alongside the cities of Baltimore, Maryland, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut, to move for intervention, arguing they would be directly harmed.

The intervening parties contended that the judgment would lead to an increase in deportations, which would negatively impact the cities' revenue by removing taxpayers. Centro Legal de la Raza, which provides legal representation to immigrants facing removal proceedings, asserted that the ruling would impose substantial uncompensated legal work on their organization. They characterized the case as an "egregious new extension" of what is known as "rulemaking-by-collusive acquiescence," a process where a new administration, disfavoring a predecessor's regulation, uses friendly litigation to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements. The Trump administration, however, countered these arguments by asserting that the cities and Centro Legal de la Raza lacked the necessary standing to intervene, stating that objections to the consent judgment's merits could not substitute for this prerequisite.

Immigration lawyers must advise clients that the 2024 administrative closure rule is no longer available for pausing removal proceedings, following the Supreme Court's refusal to block the Texas-DOJ agreement. This development also sets a precedent for 'rulemaking-by-collusive acquiescence' that could impact future regulatory challenges across various sectors.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News