Supreme Court Lets Donald Trump End Immigration Judges' Power to Shelve Deportation Cases
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to reinstate the authority of immigration judges to temporarily postpone deportation cases, keeping in place an agreement between President Donald Trump's administration and Republican-governed Texas that bars the once-common practice.
The justices denied an emergency request from three U.S. cities and an immigrant legal advocacy group, issuing a brief, one-sentence order with no explanation, as is common when the court handles emergency requests. None of the justices publicly dissented.
What "administrative closure" means
Immigration judges relied on administrative closure for decades to clear certain deportation cases off their busy dockets — for example, when separate proceedings involving the same person are pending that could prevent removal, such as a visa petition or an appeal of a criminal conviction.
The practice has been applied over the years in hundreds of thousands of deportation cases. Critics, including Texas and the Trump administration, have said administrative closure has allowed immigrants who lack legal status to remain indefinitely in the United States, acting in effect like an amnesty.
Ending the practice is part of Trump's hardline approach toward immigrants.
The deal with Texas
The administration and Texas filed the agreement in a federal court in Texas on June 22, the same day the state sued to challenge the immigration court procedure. A federal judge swiftly approved the agreement on the same day.
Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio — three cities with substantial immigrant populations — along with Centro Legal de la Raza, a group that provides legal services to immigrants, said the administration was trying to get around the federal rules for repealing a regulation. Instead of proposing a change and seeking public comment, the cities said, the administration backed a legal challenge to the rule by Texas.
"Rather than follow the law and allow the public to be heard, the Department of Justice colluded with Texas to erase longstanding immigration procedures in a single day, putting families, survivors of violence, and entire communities at risk," said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is representing the challengers.
What happens next
When the cities asked a federal judge in Texas to let them defend the policy since the federal government would not, the judge said they lacked a legal right to get involved. The Justice Department argued that because of that ruling, the cities also cannot ask the Supreme Court to get involved before it is potentially overturned through their ongoing appeal.
In their emergency request, the challengers asked the Supreme Court to put the policy back into effect while they appeal. They said the abrupt policy change could affect hundreds of thousands of immigration cases, including those involving people eligible for lawful status.
The court's refusal leaves the ban in place while the litigation continues — and immigration judges without a tool they used for decades to manage cases that were not ready to be decided.