Supreme Court Declines to Restore Biden-era Immigration Regulation – The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 9, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court on Oct. 27 allowed an immigration agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to stay in effect, rejecting a bid from three cities and a nonprofit to block it.

Justice Samuel Alito referred the appeal to the full Supreme Court, which then denied it, the court said on Tuesday. It did not list any opinions from justices on the matter.

The city of Baltimore and the other applicants had asked the nation’s top court to block an order from a U.S. district court judge in Texas that found illegal a regulation promulgated during the Biden administration. The rule allowed immigration judges to indefinitely close or suspend adjudication of deportation cases if doing so would be efficient or protect a claimant’s due process rights.

The order came after a series of events relating to the rule. First, the DOJ said it would not defend the rule against legal challenges. Then, Texas sued over the rule. The federal government, ostensibly the opposing party in the case, asked the judge in a joint motion with Texas to rule for Texas. The judge ruled for Texas, entering a permanent injunction against the rule. Then the judge denied attempts by the city applicants to intervene.

The applicants said that the federal judge erred in part by issuing his order nationwide and enabling the circumvention of a law that requires providing notice and accepting comments before rescinding certain regulations. They said they should have been allowed to intervene in the case because they are harmed by the withdrawal, including through the loss of tax revenue from taxpayers being deported. And they expressed concerns about the “collusion that infected this suit,” referring to Texas and the federal government being aligned against the Biden-era policy.

They also told the Supreme Court that the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes immigration judges to administratively close cases, contrary to the judge’s finding that no law authorizes such closures.

The applicants sought a stay of the order until an appeals court that is considering the case weighs in. That appeals court in September denied a motion for a stay pending the outcome of the appeal.

While the cities argue that the ruling will lead to immigration judges reopening closed cases, they have not listed any closed cases that have been reactivated, the DOJ told justices in a response brief. The DOJ said the agreement only applies to the closure of new cases.

Texas said in a separate filing that the justices should deny the application because the applicants had not shown they were likely to be irreparably harmed absent a stay.

“By contrast, a stay would revive a rule the district court declared unlawful, renew the fiscal and sovereign injuries Texas alleged, and unsettle a final judgment accepted by the actual parties,” Texas lawyers said. “It would also restore a binding regulation that the Federal Government would have to administer unless and until lawfully displaced, even though responsible officials concluded that the Rule cannot be defended in good faith.”