Supreme Court Lets Texas-Justice Department Deal Ending Deportation-Pause Rule Take Effect
publishers 122articles 251first reported 3 Oct, 09:00 UTCdeveloping since 3 Oct · 29 editions
The Supreme Court allowed an agreement between Texas and the Justice Department that ends a Biden-era rule permitting immigration judges to temporarily pause certain deportation cases. The justices left a lower-court ruling eliminating the rule in place, with no noted dissents.
Adopted in 2024, the rule formalized “administrative closure,” a practice used to pause deportation proceedings while some migrants pursued immigration relief through other federal processes.
Texas sued the federal government in June, arguing that the rule lacked proper legal authority. The Justice Department subsequently agreed with Texas and asked U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to vacate the rule and bar similar measures. O’Connor granted the request.
Baltimore, New Haven and Columbus, along with immigrant legal advocacy group Centro Legal de la Raza, sought to intervene and defend the rule on appeal. They argued that ending administrative closure could expose residents to deportation and reduce municipal tax revenue. O’Connor rejected their claim to legal standing.
The cities and advocacy group then asked the Supreme Court to block the judgment temporarily while their appeal continued, alleging that Texas and the federal government had improperly collaborated. Federal lawyers maintained that the challengers had not shown the concrete injury needed for standing. After the Supreme Court declined to intervene, the challengers said eliminating the procedure places vulnerable immigrants at greater risk of deportation.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 7 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 630 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 122
- Source articles
- 251
- Given to the writer
- 8, 7 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 630 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 →