Status as of October 28, 2026: The Supreme Court denied an emergency request on October 27 to put a lower-court judgment on hold. The 2024 rule allowing broader administrative closure of immigration cases has not been restored. The justices did not decide the underlying appeal.
People with immigration cases that were paused should not assume the pause still protects them. In City of Baltimore v. Texas, No. 26A500, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for a stay on October 27. That leaves in effect a June federal-court judgment setting aside a Justice Department regulation that had allowed immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals to take certain removal cases off their active calendars.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Court's docket records a denial of the emergency application. It does not record a final ruling on whether the 2024 regulation was lawful or whether the cities and immigrant legal-services group challenging its cancellation may intervene. Those issues remain in litigation.
The applicants — Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven and Centro Legal de la Raza — had asked the justices to suspend a judgment entered after Texas and the Justice Department agreed to set aside the 2024 regulation. The Fifth Circuit had previously declined emergency relief. With the Supreme Court's refusal, the judgment remains operative unless a later court action changes the situation.
What does this mean for an immigration case?
Administrative closure ordinarily removes a case from the active immigration-court calendar without granting lawful status or formally ending removal proceedings. The 2024 rule made that procedural option more broadly available. The June 2026 judgment removed that regulation as a basis for closure. The Supreme Court's October 27 action does not, by itself, issue deportation orders or automatically reopen every previously closed case.
Other procedural mechanisms — such as a continuance of a hearing, termination where authorized, or a separate stay of removal — have different legal standards. The Court's order did not abolish those avenues. Nor does a pending family petition, U visa application or other immigration filing necessarily stop a removal case.
What should affected people check?
Anyone whose proceedings were administratively closed should verify the current case status, review hearing notices, and keep their address current with immigration court. If a hearing has been scheduled while another immigration application is pending, the appropriate response depends on the person's case and should be reviewed promptly with a qualified lawyer.
Earlier coverage: What the Supreme Court was asked to do before its October 27 order. That October 25 report remains an archive of the case's status at that time.