Full Breakdown
Supreme Court to Review Consent Agreement Eliminating Administrative-Closure Rule
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
The Trump administration and the state of Texas asked the Supreme Court to keep in place a consent agreement that nullifies a 2024 immigration-court regulation allowing judges to suspend certain deportation proceedings. The petition, filed on a Thursday afternoon, seeks to prevent the Court from pausing the district-court judgment that struck down the “administrative closure” rule.
Background & Context
The regulation at issue was adopted by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in 2024 and gave immigration judges authority to halt removal actions when, for example, an immigrant is a crime victim or witness while an appeal is pending. Texas sued in federal court in Wichita Falls in June, arguing that EOIR lacked authority to create the rule. Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor entered a final judgment granting Texas’s request to void the rule and barred future adoption of similar provisions. Three cities—Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio—joined the case with Centro Legal de la Raza, a nonprofit that provides legal services to immigrants, seeking to defend the rule on appeal. O’Connor denied their standing, holding they lacked a legal right to sue.
Legal Arguments
- Trump administration and Texas: U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the challengers lack standing and that the consent agreement does not require already-closed cases to be returned to a judge’s calendar. Texas argued that reviving the rule would recreate “fiscal and sovereign injuries” it previously proved.
- Challenging cities and Centro Legal: The plaintiffs contend that eliminating the rule could increase municipal tax burdens because deportations would remove workers who contribute to local revenues. Their brief describes the consent judgment as “indefensible” and warns that allowing such “open collusion” could let agencies evade statutory constraints by securing nationwide relief without proper defense.
Potential Impact
If the Supreme Court leaves the agreement intact, immigration judges will no longer have the statutory tool to pause removals in the limited scenarios the rule covered. Conversely, the challengers argue that the loss of the rule could directly affect local tax bases, though no specific taxpayer has been identified. The Court’s decision will determine whether the administrative-closure practice can be revived in future immigration cases.