As of October 25, 2026, the Supreme Court has not ruled. Immigration judges no longer have the broad administrative-closure authority they had under a 2024 Justice Department rule, after a federal judge set that rule aside in June. Cities and an immigrant legal-services group now want the Supreme Court to pause that judgment while their appeal continues. The request does not itself restore the rule, and other ways to postpone or resolve a case depend on separate legal requirements.
The emergency application in City of Baltimore v. Texas, Supreme Court No. 26A500, is now fully briefed. Texas and the Justice Department filed objections on October 22, and the challengers filed their reply on October 23. The justices could act on the request without deciding the underlying case. No Supreme Court stay or final decision was listed on the official docket when this article was prepared.
What happened to administrative closure?
Administrative closure means taking a removal case off an immigration judge's active calendar without ending the case or granting immigration status. It has sometimes allowed someone to wait for another legal process, such as an immigration petition or application for relief, rather than have the deportation case proceed immediately. A closed case may later be returned to the calendar.
In May 2024, the Justice Department adopted a regulation permitting immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to administratively close cases under a flexible standard. On June 22, 2026, the State of Texas sued the Justice Department. Texas and the department agreed to a judgment that same day, and a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas vacated the 2024 rule and permanently barred its enforcement. The judgment also restricts future rules allowing indefinite administrative closure without an express statutory basis. The order is in effect while the present appeal and emergency application proceed. The district court's August 21 opinion describes the judgment and later intervention dispute.
Why has the case reached the Supreme Court?
The cities of Baltimore, Columbus and New Haven, together with Oakland-based Centro Legal de la Raza, tried to join the Texas case so they could challenge the judgment. The district court denied their request to intervene on August 21, finding they had not demonstrated the required legal standing. They appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which declined emergency relief on September 29.
On October 9, the group asked the Supreme Court to suspend the June judgment while the appeal continues. The applicants say eliminating administrative closure can put cases back on active dockets, undermine access to immigration relief and harm the cities and the legal-services organization. They also argue that the government and Texas improperly eliminated an existing regulation by agreeing to a court judgment rather than completing a separate rulemaking process. These are the applicants' legal arguments, not Supreme Court findings.
The Justice Department and Texas oppose the stay. They argue that the cities and Centro Legal lack standing to challenge the judgment and that the 2024 rule allowed cases to remain unresolved beyond what immigration law authorizes. The applicants rejected those arguments in their October 23 reply. The dispute therefore concerns both the administrative-closure rule and whether these outside groups can challenge how it was set aside.
Does this mean judges cannot delay any deportation case?
No. Administrative closure is not the same as a continuance (postponing a particular hearing), termination (ending proceedings) or an authorized stay of removal. Each is governed by different rules and circumstances. The June judgment took away the 2024 regulation as a general basis for administrative closure; it did not itself issue a removal order against every person whose case was previously closed or abolish every other procedural option.
In practice, advocates report that some immigration courts have interpreted the June ruling broadly, refusing administrative closure and returning previously closed cases to active calendars. But the treatment of any particular case, possible statutory exceptions and other available motions require individual review. A pending family petition, U visa request or other application does not, by itself, guarantee that an immigration judge will postpone proceedings.
What should someone with a pending immigration case do?
If a case was administratively closed, check its current status and hearing notices rather than assuming that an older order means no hearing is scheduled. Keep contact information updated with the immigration court. Someone facing a new hearing while another benefit application is pending should discuss the specific procedural options and deadlines with a qualified removal-defense attorney. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center has published a September practice advisory explaining the litigation and the uncertainty in immigration courts.
The Supreme Court may grant or refuse the requested stay. Either action would address which rules operate during the litigation; it would not necessarily settle every legal question about immigration judges' authority. Factum Immigration will distinguish any future emergency order from a final merits ruling.