The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday left in force a settlement between Texas and the Justice Department that cut off an avenue for pausing some deportations, turning away an emergency request from three cities and a legal services provider, Bloomberg Law reported.

Source: Bloomberg Law

The court gave no explanation and no justice publicly dissented, Bloomberg Law said. The case is Baltimore v. Texas, No. 26A500.

The disputed 2024 regulation, adopted by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, formalised 'administrative closure' — a practice allowing immigration judges to pause deportation proceedings in some circumstances, for example when a person is separately seeking protection as a neglected child or a violent-crime survivor, or is pursuing other immigration relief, according to Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog reporting.

Texas sued the federal government in Wichita Falls, Texas, in June 2026, arguing the rule could not be squared with federal immigration law. The Justice Department agreed the same day, and U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor signed off on a settlement setting aside the rule and barring a similar rule in future unless Congress first changed the law, the reports said.

Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut, joined by Centro Legal de la Raza, argued the settlement erased 'a significant regulation' in a single day 'without meaningful judicial review, public participation, or adherence to the APA's rulemaking requirements' and amounted to 'egregious collusion.' Judge O'Connor said the challengers lacked standing because they were not directly enough affected, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause his judgment while they appealed.

At the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for Texas and the Justice Department that the challengers' request 'attempts to improperly leverage a clear-cut dispute over intervention into a far-reaching attack on the merits of a consent judgment.' SCOTUSblog noted the settlement does not by itself require cases already administratively closed to be put back on a judge's calendar, a point Texas used to argue any harm to cities was indirect.

Source: SCOTUSblog via Mingooland