The Supreme Court refused to intervene in a dispute over pausing deportation cases
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a dispute over a Biden-era rule, leaving immigration judges unable to pause some deportation proceedings. Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven and the nonprofit Centro Legal de la Raza had sought to defend the rule. Texas alleged administrative closure had expanded dramatically during the Biden administration and effectively allowed people to stay indefinitely.
More context
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court refused to step into a Biden-era regulation dispute, leaving immigration judges barred from pausing deportation cases. The justices rejected an emergency appeal by Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio, New Haven, Connecticut, and Centro Legal de la Raza, which sought to join the case and defend the rule after a judge refused to let them intervene. The cities and nonprofit, represented by Democracy Forward, said the regulation had been used to help crime victims and neglected juveniles. They argued Texas and the Trump administration worked together to secure a court order permanently blocking it, bypassing public rulemaking. Texas sued, alleging the practice known as administrative closure was dramatically expanded under former President Joe Biden and effectively let people remain in the country indefinitely. The regulation allowed judges to pause proceedings for some immigrants who qualify for legal status.
Was this story useful?
What was the main problem? (optional)
Reporting
- The San Diego Union-Tribune (with Associated Press) — Supreme Court won't intervene to allow judges to pause some deportations
- Associated Press — Supreme Court won't intervene in case over Biden-era immigration regulation | AP News
- The Texas Tribune — Supreme Court won't restore Biden-era deportation rule
- mundonow.com — Supreme Court Backs Trump, Keeps Biden-Era Deportation Rule Blocked
Verifier’s note
AP News, the San Diego Union-Tribune, MundoNow and The Texas Tribune report that the Supreme Court declined to intervene, leaving the Biden-era rule blocked. This is the same event, though the Court left an existing block in place rather than issuing a new block.