Supreme Court Blocks Judges From Pausing Deportation Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to unfreeze a Biden-era policy that allowed immigration judges to temporarily close deportation cases, leaving in force a nationwide block on the practice while litigation continues.

The court rejected an emergency request from three cities with large migrant populations — Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut — together with a legal services provider. The order was unsigned and noted no dissents. The Supreme Court gave no explanation for its decision.

The ruling keeps in place an agreement between the Trump administration and the state of Texas that bars judges from using discretion to pause deportation proceedings.

What does the ruling change?

The disputed regulation, known as "administrative closure," gives immigration judges discretion to temporarily pause deportation proceedings for migrants while they seek humanitarian protections or other forms of legal status.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review adopted the regulation in 2024. Texas sued to challenge it in 2026 in federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas, where Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor handles a large percentage of cases.

The Justice Department immediately said it agreed that a judge should set aside the rule and bar future administrations from adopting anything similar unless Congress first changed the law.

On June 22, Judge O'Connor granted the requests from the DOJ and Texas and permanently blocked the administrative-closure regulation nationwide. Tuesday's Supreme Court order leaves that ruling in effect.

The practical consequence: immigration judges cannot currently use administrative closure to pause deportation cases while the broader dispute continues in court.

Who brought the challenge?

The cities of Baltimore, Columbus and New Haven, joined by Centro Legal de la Raza, a legal services provider, asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Justice Department urged the justices to deny the appeal, arguing the cities lacked legal standing and had not shown immediate harm. The department told the court: "This Court should not allow applicants to put the cart before the horse."

The cities and Centro Legal de la Raza argued the administrative-closure process was intended to "promote efficiency or protect due process rights." Texas and the Trump administration countered that the practice effectively allowed people to stay in the country indefinitely.

Democracy Forward and the cities characterized the agreement between Texas and the Trump administration as "egregious collusion." They said the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene would allow the policy to be dismantled through a backdoor agreement.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said the Department of Justice "colluded with Texas to erase longstanding immigration procedures in a single day, putting families, survivors of violence, and entire communities at risk."

What is at stake for migrants?

The dispute centers on whether immigration judges can suspend deportation proceedings — for example, when a crime victim or witness seeks relief such as asylum from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a separate agency.

Supporters of the regulation said administrative closure had been used for decades and helped crime victims and neglected juveniles. Critics called the practice a form of covert amnesty.

According to Diario Público, administrative closure has been granted to about 360,000 migrants since 1990. Univision reported the same figure, saying the practice had benefited about 360,000 migrants.

With the Supreme Court's one-sentence order, that tool is now unavailable to immigration judges nationwide while litigation over the regulation proceeds in the lower courts.

The case continues. Until it is resolved, deportation cases before immigration judges must move forward without the option of administrative closure.