Trump's unusual legal gambit against Biden-era deportation rule pays off at Supreme Court

The Biden administration had adopted the rule in 2024, establishing procedures for immigration judges to temporarily pause certain deportation proceedings through a practice known as "administrative closure." This applied when migrants were pursuing immigration relief through other federal proceedings.

Texas sued the federal government in June, arguing that the rule was adopted without proper legal authority. The Department of Justice surprisingly agreed with Texas, asking the judge overseeing the case to vacate the rule and prevent similar rules from being adopted in the future.

Legal Challenges

Opponents accused Texas and the Justice Department of colluding to eliminate the Biden-era rule, noting that the two sides worked together despite being on opposite sides of the lawsuit. On the same day the DOJ made its request, District Judge Reed O'Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, granted it.

In August, three cities with large immigrant populations — Baltimore, Maryland; New Haven, Connecticut; and Columbus, Ohio — joined with Centro Legal de la Raza, an immigrant legal advocacy group, in an effort to intervene in the case and defend the Biden-era rule on appeal.

Appeal Rejected

The cities argued that eliminating the rule could lead to residents being deported, reducing their tax revenues and giving them legal standing to challenge the agreement. O'Connor rejected that argument.

On Oct. 9, the three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the lower court's judgment while their appeal proceeded, accusing Texas and the federal government of engaging in "egregious collusion" to eliminate the Biden-era rule. Federal lawyers argued that the cities and their allies lacked legal standing to challenge the agreement.