Supreme Court Lets Texas Deportation Deal Remain in Effect

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to immediately block an agreement between the Justice Department and Texas governing aspects of deportation proceedings, leaving the arrangement in place while legal challenges continue. Baltimore, New Haven, Conn., Columbus, Ohio, and an immigrant advocacy group had asked the justices to intervene and allow the restoration of a Biden administration policy granting immigration judges discretion to postpone certain cases.

The dispute centers on administrative closure, a procedure that allows immigration judges to suspend deportation proceedings in specific circumstances, including when individuals seek humanitarian protections or another legal status that would permit them to remain in the United States.

The Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order without explaining its decision, consistent with its practice in many emergency applications. No dissents were noted.

The three cities, which have significant immigrant communities, argued that administrative closure serves an important procedural purpose and has existed in some form for decades. They said the policy has implications for hundreds of thousands of immigration cases.

In their challenge, the cities described administrative closure as a mechanism designed to manage cases efficiently while safeguarding legal protections for people facing deportation.

The cities said the procedure was intended to "promote efficiency or protect due process rights."

The dispute follows changes to immigration procedures under the Trump administration and a challenge to the agreement between Texas and the Justice Department. The cities and the immigrant advocacy group sought to restore the Biden-era policy, which gave immigration judges greater discretion to postpone proceedings in qualifying cases.

According to the Trump administration, the number of removal cases closed through administrative closure rose substantially between 2013 and 2017. The administration reported that the total increased from nearly 172,000 cases in 2013 to more than 268,000 in 2017.

The Supreme Court's order did not provide further details about the legal grounds for refusing to block the agreement. The immediate decision leaves the challenged arrangement in place rather than restoring the earlier policy through the emergency request.