Supreme Court Finalizes Texas-DOJ Agreement Ending Biden-Era Deportation Rule

The Supreme Court has allowed an agreement between the state of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice to take effect. The deal ends a Biden-era rule governing how immigration judges can temporarily pause deportation proceedings. The court acted without noting any dissents.

The decision upholds a lower court ruling that eliminated the policy. The Biden administration adopted the rule in 2024. It formally defined how judges could use administrative closure to put certain cases on hold. This often applied when migrants were pursuing other federal immigration relief. With the rule gone, that specific procedure for pausing cases is no longer in place.

Texas filed a lawsuit against the federal government in June. The state argued the rule was created without proper legal authority. The Department of Justice sided with Texas. It asked the judge to vacate the rule and prevent similar policies from being adopted in the future.

U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor granted the request on the same day the Justice Department made it. O'Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, handled the case. Opponents of the deal accused Texas and the Justice Department of working together despite being on opposite sides of the lawsuit. They claimed the two parties colluded to remove the rule.

In August, three cities joined the legal dispute. Baltimore, Maryland, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbus, Ohio, partnered with the immigrant advocacy group Centro Legal de la Raza. They sought to intervene to defend the rule on appeal. The cities argued that eliminating the rule could lead to more deportations. They claimed this would reduce local tax revenues and give them standing to challenge the agreement. O'Connor rejected that argument.

On Oct. 9, the cities and Centro Legal de la Raza asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the lower court's judgment. They accused Texas and the federal government of engaging in egregious collusion. Federal lawyers countered that the challengers lacked standing. They argued the groups had not shown the concrete injury required for a federal court to consider their claims.

The Supreme Court's action leaves the Biden-era rule eliminated. The dispute over the process that ended the rule continues to draw criticism from opponents. The lower court judgment now stands while the appeal proceeds.