Supreme Court Leaves Immigration Judges Unable to Shelve Deportation Cases

Get an AI summary: Perplexity ChatGPT Claude Gemini

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, to reinstate immigration judges’ authority to temporarily postpone deportation cases. That leaves in place an agreement between President Donald Trump’s administration and Republican-governed Texas that bars the once-common practice. The tool is known as “administrative closure.” The ruling is procedural, but it affects a system with a backlog of millions of cases. Here, our EB-1A consultants have explained this important news and dived into the nitty-gritties of it.

What the Court did

The justices denied an emergency request from three U.S. cities, including Baltimore, and an immigrant legal advocacy group. The request sought to halt the deal while litigation continues. The order was one sentence long, gave no reasoning and noted no dissents. Accounts differ on its form. Law360 reported that Justice Samuel Alito denied the application. Other outlets described a brief, unsigned order.

The challengers were Baltimore, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbus, Ohio, together with the legal-services group Centro Legal de la Raza. The decision is not a final ruling on the merits. The challengers’ appeal remains pending before the Fifth Circuit, and the Supreme Court decided only whether to pause the judgment in the meantime.

What administrative closure is

Previously, immigration judges used administrative closure to clear certain cases off busy dockets. One example is when separate proceedings that could prevent removal are pending, such as a visa petition or an appeal of a criminal conviction. It has also been used when someone is seeking humanitarian protection or other legal status.

The tool has long been contested. Between 2013 and 2017, the number of removal cases closed this way rose from nearly 172,000 to more than 268,000, according to the Trump administration. In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that immigration courts “do not have the general authority” to suspend cases indefinitely. He also said the practice lacked a valid legal foundation.

Advocates pushed back. The American Bar Association argued that judges needed the tool to manage heavy caseloads and had used it for 30 years. The backlog then stood at 667,000 pending matters. Advocates warned that without closure, judges would pile up continuances or issue removal orders. In 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland overruled Sessions. He noted that three federal appeals courts had already rejected that policy. Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the National Association of Immigration Judges said the tool helped judges “clear our dockets.” The Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department, adopted the current regulation in 2024.

The case turns on how the rule was undone. In April 2025, the acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review said the office “could not — and will not — defend” the 2024 rule. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton then sued in June, arguing the rule worked as de facto amnesty. Critics, including Texas and the administration, say closure lets people without legal status stay indefinitely, acting “in effect like an amnesty.”

The two sides were ideologically aligned but formally opponents. On the day the suit was filed, they told a judge they had agreed to settle it. The filing came on June 22. The suit was filed in Wichita Falls, Texas, where Judge Reed O’Connor heard every case at the time. He quickly approved the settlement and later ruled that the cities and advocates lacked standing. The Fifth Circuit declined to block the agreement.

The challengers called the arrangement an abuse of the courts. They described it as the product of “egregious collusion.” They said it let the administration undo an agency action without going through the proper process. A rule adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking, they argued, may be rescinded only through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The Government’s defense

Paxton’s office told the justices there had been a live controversy, because the rule was still in effect when Texas sued. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the challengers could not intervene because the rule regulates immigrants in removal proceedings, not cities. He added that undocumented immigrants could potentially sue over the rule’s elimination. He also noted that the agreement does not require already-closed cases to return to an immigration judge’s calendar.

What it means in the US immigration landscape

The ruling lands amid the administration’s overhaul of immigration courts, which sit inside the Justice Department rather than the independent federal judiciary. The cities argued they would lose tax revenue if residents were deported. They also said crime victims might hesitate to cooperate with police once deportation hearings reopen.

For now, judges lack a flexible tool many used for decades. Whether the Fifth Circuit revives the fight, or immigrants mount their own challenges, will decide how long that lasts.

At GCEB1, our EB-1A experts are constantly staying tuned to each and every development in the US immigration landscape. Get in touch with us, if you are looking for guidance into merit based immigration pathways. We wish you a safe and stress free immigration journey ahead.