The US Supreme Court declined on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, to reinstate the authority of immigration judges to temporarily postpone deportation cases, handing the Trump administration a victory in its immigration enforcement drive, according to Reuters reporting. The decision leaves in place a court-approved agreement between Texas and the Trump administration blocking the practice known as administrative closure, while litigation continues. In a brief, unsigned order, the court turned down a request from three cities and an immigrant legal services group to pause that agreement. No dissents were noted, according to reporting.
What administrative closure allowed
Administrative closure let immigration judges take cases off their active schedules without dismissing them. Some immigrants used that time to pursue visas or other legal options that could affect whether they could remain in the country. The regulation at the centre of the dispute was adopted in 2024 by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Department of Justice. Texas and other critics argued the practice allowed people without lawful status to remain indefinitely, describing it as a form of backdoor amnesty. Supporters said it helped courts manage crowded dockets and protected people awaiting decisions in related proceedings, including crime victims and neglected children.
Who brought the challenge
Baltimore, Columbus (Ohio) and New Haven (Connecticut), joined by Centro Legal de la Raza, sought to defend the regulation after Texas and the Trump administration agreed to have it blocked. The challengers argued the agreement bypassed the public rulemaking process. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject their request, arguing the cities lacked standing and had failed to demonstrate immediate legal harm. The ruling does not end the underlying litigation — it decides only the emergency request to restore the rule while the case proceeds. But in practice, it keeps administrative closure unavailable for now, meaning immigration judges cannot use it to pause cases while related applications are pending.
What happens next
The underlying case continues in lower courts, and the administration’s broader immigration docket — including the separate mail-voting emergency request also before the justices — will test how far the court’s conservative majority goes in backing executive action before the midterms.
Related: Hackers Hit FEC Filing System Days Before US Midterms
