Supreme Court Leaves Biden-Era Deportation Rule Blocked

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to reinstate a Biden-era immigration rule that allowed immigration judges to temporarily suspend certain deportation proceedings, leaving in place a lower court ruling that blocks the regulation. The justices issued a brief, unsigned order without explanation, according to EFE, citing U.S. media reports. The outcome aligns with the position of the Donald Trump administration, which opposed preserving the policy.

What does the order change?

The dispute centers on a practice known as administrative closure. It allowed immigration judges to pause certain deportation cases temporarily and helped reduce immigration court backlogs. Tuesday's order keeps the regulation blocked nationwide, consistent with the lower court decision.

The rule at issue was adopted during former President Joe Biden's administration. Administrative closure itself has a much longer history; immigration courts have used the practice for decades.

Since 1990, approximately 360,000 migrants have benefited from administrative closure, according to government statistics cited by EFE. That figure is the cumulative total since 1990, not the count of cases handled exclusively during Biden's presidency. The Supreme Court's decision concerns whether the regulation should remain blocked, not an individual review of the cases involving those migrants.

The takeaway: the block on the rule stands, but the court did not reopen or review the underlying cases of migrants who previously received administrative closure.

How did the case reach the court?

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, his administration announced it would no longer defend the immigration policy introduced by his predecessor. Texas then challenged the regulation in federal court.

The administration's refusal to defend the rule, combined with the resulting litigation, brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The justices' one-line order resolves the immediate dispute by leaving the block intact.

In short: a state lawsuit plus a federal government that declined to defend the rule produced the Supreme Court confrontation.

Who sought to preserve the rule?

Three cities with significant immigrant populations participated in the legal effort to defend the regulation:

• Baltimore, Maryland
• Columbus, Ohio
• New Haven, Connecticut

Together with an immigrant rights advocacy organization, the cities asked to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the rule. Lower courts rejected their requests. The cities and the advocacy group then sought relief from the Supreme Court, and the unsigned order left them unsuccessful in their attempt to preserve administrative closure under the disputed regulation.

The takeaway: the three cities and the advocacy group failed at every level, from the intervention request through the Supreme Court.

What do advocacy groups say?

Immigrant rights organizations argue that administrative closure provided protection for certain migrants by temporarily pausing deportation proceedings, EFE reported. Their concerns focus on the consequences of restricting a practice that immigration courts have used for decades.

The procedure also helped immigration courts manage their caseloads. The dispute therefore touches both the administration of immigration proceedings and the potential consequences for individuals facing deportation.

Advocates for the regulation continue to emphasize the protections that administrative closure provided to certain migrants, even as the Supreme Court's decision leaves the Trump administration's position in place.

The rule stays blocked, and the practice that sheltered roughly 360,000 migrants since 1990 now lacks the regulatory footing its defenders wanted.