Supreme Court declines to restore policy allowing immigration judges to close deportation cases

In this June 9, 2025, file photo, a room sign is shown outside of an immigration court at the Ted Weiss Federal Building in New York. (Adam Gray/Getty Images, FILE)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to unfreeze a Biden-era policy that allowed immigration judges to use their discretion to temporarily close deportation cases for immigrants.

In an unsigned order, the court rejected a request from three cities with large migrant populations — Baltimore as well as Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut — to pause an agreement between Texas and the Trump administration that threw out the policy.

There were no noted dissents.

The regulation, known as “administrative closure,” gives immigration judges discretion to temporarily pause deportation proceedings for migrants while the migrants seek humanitarian protections or other forms of legal status in the country.

The Trump administration has pushed to curtail judicial processes for unlawful migrants, and the high court’s conservative majority has been largely deferential to executive authority in the area of immigration policy.

Deportation hearings in immigration court are legal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security in which an immigration judge determines whether a migrant should be removed from the United States. Often, an immigration judge will pause or dismiss a case to allow the individual to pursue legal relief.

While dismissals were viewed as a positive outcome for migrants, immigration attorneys have said the Trump administration, as part of its immigration crackdown, began to use dismissals to detain people at immigration courts and place them into expedited removal without allowing them to fight their case.

Last year, federal agents arrested hundreds of migrants at immigration courts — in some cases after their deportation cases were dismissed.

In court filings, the cities argued that administrative closure promoted “efficiency” and protected “due process rights.” They also argued that the practice has existed in various forms for decades.

In June, the state of Texas sued the federal government, arguing that the policy granted “indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country.”