Supreme Court Allows Texas-DOJ Agreement Ending Deportation-Pause Rule
publishers 119articles 242first reported 3 Oct, 09:00 UTCdeveloping since 3 Oct · 30 editions
The Supreme Court has allowed an agreement between Texas and the Justice Department to take effect, leaving in place a lower-court judgment that eliminated a Biden-era rule permitting immigration judges to temporarily pause some deportation proceedings. No dissents were noted.
The 2024 rule formalized “administrative closure,” a practice used to put cases on hold while migrants pursued immigration relief through other federal proceedings. Texas sued the federal government in June, arguing that the rule lacked proper legal authority. The Justice Department agreed with Texas and asked U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to vacate the rule and bar similar regulations in the future. O’Connor granted that request.
Baltimore, New Haven and Columbus, along with immigrant legal advocacy group Centro Legal de la Raza, later sought to intervene and defend the rule on appeal. They argued that ending administrative closure could result in residents being deported and reduce municipal tax revenue. O’Connor rejected their standing argument.
The cities and advocacy group asked the Supreme Court on Oct. 9 to block the judgment while their appeal continued, alleging that Texas and the federal government had colluded to dismantle the rule. Federal attorneys said the challengers had not shown the concrete injury needed to establish standing.
After the Supreme Court declined to intervene, the cities and Centro Legal de la Raza said the change placed vulnerable migrants at greater risk of deportation and undermined public safety.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 4 with the publisher's own text; 7 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 606 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 119
- Source articles
- 242
- Given to the writer
- 8, 4 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 7
- This version written
- 606 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →