Supreme Court Denies Immigration Judges Power to Delay Deportation Cases

By the Editorial Team · Wednesday, October 28, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to reinstate immigration judges' ability to use administrative closure, maintaining a Trump-era agreement that halts this practice nationwide. This ruling upholds a controversial policy change that critics say removes a key tool for managing deportation cases fairly, potentially increasing deportation risks for vulnerable immigrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court on October 27 declined to reinstate the authority of immigration judges to temporarily pause deportation proceedings, a practice known as “administrative closure.” The court’s brief, unsigned order effectively keeps in place an agreement forged between the Trump administration and the state of Texas that prohibits the use of administrative closure in immigration cases.

The decision came in response to an emergency request from three cities—Baltimore, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbus, Ohio—and the immigrant legal advocacy group Centro Legal de la Raza. They sought to block the agreement pending ongoing litigation but were denied without explanation. No justices publicly dissented from the ruling.

The contested agreement was filed in federal court in Texas on June 22, 2026, the same day Texas initiated legal action to challenge the immigration court procedure. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor promptly approved the agreement, which effectively ended the use of administrative closure nationwide. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later declined to suspend the agreement while appeals proceed.

Administrative closure had long been used by immigration judges to manage heavy caseloads by temporarily pausing proceedings in cases where other legal matters involving the same individuals—such as visa petitions or criminal case appeals—might impact deportation outcomes. It has been applied in hundreds of thousands of cases and is viewed by supporters as a tool promoting efficient case management and fairness for immigrants.

Critics, including the state of Texas and the Trump administration, argued that administrative closure amounted to an indefinite reprieve allowing immigrants without legal status to remain in the United States, effectively creating a form of amnesty. Ending its use aligns with the administration’s tough stance on immigration enforcement.

The Biden administration had formally codified administrative closure in 2024, concluding that it aids judicial efficiency and fairness. However, after Trump assumed office in 2025, the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review chose not to defend the Biden-era rule in court. Texas challenged the regulation, characterizing it as granting “indefinite amnesty” to unauthorized immigrants.

The three municipalities and Centro Legal de la Raza, which intervened to defend the rule, argued that the Trump administration colluded with Texas to circumvent normal regulatory procedures by orchestrating “manufactured litigation” to eliminate the policy. They contended this undermines the rule of law and public participation in policymaking.

In a joint statement following the Supreme Court decision, the plaintiffs and their legal representatives expressed disappointment, warning that ending administrative closure increases the risk of deporting vulnerable individuals and harms public safety. Officials from the Department of Justice and the Texas attorney general’s office did not immediately comment on the ruling.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.