U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place limits on pausing deportation cases

Justices decline to intervene in a Texas-led challenge to a rule letting immigration judges postpone proceedings

By LineZotpaper AI staff

Published28 October 2026

Updated28 October 2026

Read Time2 min

Sources4 outlets

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a Texas-led lawsuit, leaving in place restrictions on when immigration judges can pause deportation proceedings, even for immigrants who qualify for legal status.

At issue is a federal rule the Biden administration revived in 2024 that allowed immigration judges to postpone deportation proceedings for immigrants who qualify for legal status, either through marriage to a U.S. citizen or certain visas for victims of crime.

On June 22, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas in Wichita Falls to block the rule, arguing in a 43-page lawsuit that it effectively granted "indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country." U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled in favor of Texas the same day, after the Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, filed a response agreeing with Paxton's office.

Three cities, Baltimore, New Haven, Conn., and Columbus, Ohio, along with Centro Legal de la Raza, an Oakland, Calif., nonprofit that provides legal services, challenged the judge's decision. They argued the rule was approved by Congress, giving immigration judges the authority to halt deportation proceedings for immigrants who have pending applications and qualify for legal status. The plaintiffs said undocumented crime victims might stop cooperating with local law enforcement if they are at risk of deportation, even when they qualify for visas that would let them stay in the country during a criminal prosecution. The cities also argued they could lose tax revenue if their residents are deported.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence ruling denying the plaintiffs' request to protect the procedures that had been in place during the Biden administration. The case can return to a lower court to decide whether the cities can intervene, or the cities can ask the Supreme Court for a hearing.

RSS

The Daily Edition

The front page in your inbox each weekday morning: the lead, the picks, and why each one earned its place.

Analysis

Why This Matters

Immigration judges remain barred from pausing deportation proceedings, even for immigrants who may qualify for legal status, while the litigation continues.
Plaintiffs say undocumented crime victims may stop cooperating with police if they risk deportation, and that cities could lose tax revenue if residents are deported.
The Supreme Court's decision is procedural, so the underlying dispute over the rule's legality remains unresolved in the lower courts.

Background

The rule was revived by the Biden administration in 2024 and let immigration judges postpone deportation proceedings for immigrants who qualify for legal status through marriage to a U.S. citizen or certain visas for victims of crime. Texas challenged it in June, and a federal judge in Texas sided with the state the same day the lawsuit was filed, after the Justice Department under the Trump administration said it agreed with the state. The Supreme Court's refusal to intervene leaves that outcome in place for now, but it is not a final ruling on the merits of the rule.

Key Perspectives

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: argued in the lawsuit that the rule effectively granted "indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country." The Department of Justice: under the Trump administration, filed a response agreeing with Paxton's office. The cities of Baltimore, New Haven and Columbus, with Centro Legal de la Raza: argued the rule was approved by Congress, that undocumented crime victims may stop cooperating with police if they risk deportation, and that cities could lose tax revenue.

What to Watch

Whether a lower court decides the cities can intervene in the case.
Whether the cities ask the Supreme Court for a hearing.
Whether the bar on pausing deportation proceedings stays in force while the litigation continues.

Sources

Supreme Court allows Texas deal with Justice Department on deportation proceedings · Philadelphia Inquirer
Supreme Court Allows Texas’ Deal With Justice Dept. on Deportation Proceedings · The New York Times
U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place limits on when deportation cases can be paused · Texas Tribune
Supreme Court Allows Texas’ Deal With Justice Dept. on Deportation Proceedings · The New York Times

Checked

12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 12 supported.

Show each claim

SupportedThe Supreme Court left in place limits on when deportation proceedings can be paused.Texas Tribune: “Immigration judges are still barred from pausing deportation proceedings — even if an immigrant qualifies for legal status — after the U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to intervene”
SupportedThe justices declined to intervene in a Texas-led challenge to a rule allowing immigration judges to postpone proceedings.Texas Tribune: “the U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to intervene in a Texas-led lawsuit that challenged the delays”
SupportedThe Biden administration revived the rule in 2024, and it covered people who qualify for legal status through marriage to a U.S. citizen or certain crime-victim visas.Texas Tribune: “a federal rule the Biden administration revived in 2024 that allowed immigration judges to postpone deportation proceedings for immigrants who qualify for legal status in the U.S., either through being married to a U.S. citizen or certain visas for victims of crime.”
SupportedPaxton's lawsuit described the rule as granting “indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country.”Texas Tribune: “arguing in a 43-page lawsuit that it effectively granted “indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country.””
SupportedPaxton filed the lawsuit on June 22 in the Northern District of Texas in Wichita Falls.Texas Tribune: “On June 22, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas in Wichita Falls to block the Biden administration’s immigration rule”
SupportedJudge Reed O'Connor ruled for Texas the same day, after the Justice Department, under the Trump administration, filed a response agreeing with Paxton's office.Texas Tribune: “U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled the same day in favor of Texas after the Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, filed its response saying it agreed with Paxton’s office.”
SupportedBaltimore, New Haven, Columbus and Centro Legal de la Raza challenged the judge's decision.Texas Tribune: “Three cities — Baltimore; New Haven, Conn.; and Columbus, Ohio — and Centro Legal de la Raza, an Oakland, Calif.,-based nonprofit that provides legal services, filed a lawsuit challenging the judge’s decision.”
SupportedThe challengers argued that Congress approved the rule, authorizing judges to halt proceedings for immigrants with pending applications who qualify for legal status.Texas Tribune: “They argued the rule was approved by Congress, giving authority to immigration judges to halt deportation proceedings for immigrants who have pending applications and qualify for legal status.”
SupportedThe plaintiffs argued undocumented crime victims might stop cooperating with local law enforcement if at risk of deportation, even if they qualify for visas that help them stay during a prosecution.Texas Tribune: “The plaintiffs said that crime victims who are undocumented might stop cooperating with local law enforcement if they are at risk of being deported, even if they qualify for specific visas that help them stay in the country during the criminal prosecution.”
SupportedThe cities argued they could lose tax revenue if their residents were deported.Texas Tribune: “The cities also argued that they could lose tax revenue if their residents are deported.”
SupportedThe Supreme Court issued a one-sentence ruling denying the plaintiffs' request to protect the procedures in place during the Biden administration.Texas Tribune: “the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence ruling denying a request from the plaintiffs to protect the procedures that had been in place during the Biden administration.”
SupportedThe case can return to a lower court to decide whether the cities can intervene, or the cities can ask the Supreme Court for a hearing.Texas Tribune: “The case can go back to a lower court to decide if the cities can intervene, or the cities can ask the Supreme Court to have a hearing.”