The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 27, refused to restore a Biden-era regulation that allowed immigration judges to set aside some deportation cases, leaving in place a judgment that Texas and the Trump administration jointly asked a federal judge to enter.
The brief, unsigned order in City of Baltimore v. Texas, No. 26A500, came without comment and without any noted dissents, SCOTUSblog reported. The challengers were the cities of Baltimore, New Haven and Columbus and Centro Legal de la Raza, a legal services provider for immigrants. Their application to the Court was filed October 9.
What the rule did
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Justice Department office that runs the immigration courts, adopted the regulation in 2024. It let immigration judges "administratively close" certain removal cases, taking them off the active calendar. One common use was to let a crime victim or witness pursue relief, such as asylum, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services without a deportation case moving forward at the same time.
Texas argued that federal law requires an immigration judge to decide whether a person is removable, and that the office had no power to adopt the rule.
A lawsuit with no opponent
What made this case unusual is that the federal government did not defend its own regulation. According to SCOTUSblog, Texas sued in June 2026 in Wichita Falls, Texas, where the case went to Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor. The same day, the Justice Department and Texas asked for a final judgment in the state's favor that would vacate the rule and bar the immigration courts from adopting a similar one. O'Connor granted it.
The cities and Centro Legal then tried to join the case to defend the rule. O'Connor ruled they lacked standing. The Fifth Circuit refused to pause the judgment while they appealed, and they went to the Supreme Court.
Their lawyer, Joshua Salzman of Democracy Forward, called the agreement the product of "egregious collusion." The challengers argued that "If a judgment procured through such open collusion is allowed to remain in effect," any agency could avoid the strictures of the federal law that governs how agencies change their rules, SCOTUSblog reported in its earlier account of the briefing.
The government's answer
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the request "attempts to improperly leverage a clear-cut dispute over" the challengers' bid to join the case into a broad attack on the merits. He argued that the cities could not challenge a consent judgment they were never allowed to join, that their claimed harms were "too 'indirect' and 'attenuated'" and that the agreement does not force administratively closed cases back onto judges' calendars.
Texas argued that pausing the ruling "would revive a rule the district court declared unlawful." It warned that if cities could sue here, "nearly every immigration measure would be judicially challengeable by municipalities on both sides."
What the order actually decides
An emergency order like this one is not a ruling on the merits. The Court did not say the 2024 rule was unlawful or that the Texas judgment was proper. It declined to step in while the cities' appeal is pending, which leaves the judgment in force and the rule gone for now.
The practical point for anyone watching federal regulation is the route. Normally, repealing a rule means a new notice and comment process under the Administrative Procedure Act. Here, a friendly lawsuit and a same-day judgment achieved the same result, with a permanent bar on a replacement rule. Whether outsiders can challenge that kind of agreement depends on standing, and so far every court has said the cities do not have it.
The order also arrived four days after briefing closed. It is the latest in a run of emergency rulings on immigration and election fights, including the limits on DHS noncitizen voter operations and the Ninth Circuit fight over California ballots. The cities' appeal remains before the Fifth Circuit.
Two Taps News stories summarize reporting and the analysis discussed on Two Taps and Friends. They are not legal advice. Read our standards.
