The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to intervene in a dispute over a Biden-era immigration policy that allowed immigration judges to pause certain deportation proceedings, leaving in place a court order blocking the regulation.
The justices rejected an emergency appeal from Democratic-led cities and a legal advocacy group seeking to defend the policy, which they said helped crime victims and neglected juveniles.
In a statement provided to Newsweek by Democracy Forward, which represents the applicants alongside Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann LLP, the applicants and their co-counsel said they were "deeply disappointed" by the decision.Texas sued to block the practice, known as "administrative closure," arguing that it had expanded dramatically under former President Joe Biden and effectively allowed some immigrants to remain in the United States indefinitely. Texas and the Trump administration later agreed to a court order blocking the regulation. Administrative closure allows immigration judges to temporarily put deportation cases on hold, including for immigrants pursuing humanitarian protections or other forms of legal status in the United States.
Baltimore, Columbus (Ohio), and New Haven (Connecticut), along with the legal group Centro Legal de la Raza, sought to intervene in the case to defend the policy. After a judge rejected their request, the cities and the group filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.
"For decades, these procedures have allowed immigration judges to temporarily pause deportation proceedings for people pursuing lawful immigration relief, including survivors of violence, abused and neglected children, and victims and witnesses who cooperate with law enforcement," the applicants and their co-counsel said in a statement.
"Eliminating these protections puts vulnerable people at greater risk of deportation and undermines public safety in communities across the country."The Justice Department urged the justices to reject the appeal, arguing that the applicants lacked legal standing to challenge the settlement and had not shown they would suffer immediate legal harm.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in a filing with the Supreme Court that the cities were using their request to intervene in the case to mount a broader challenge to the settlement.
"This Court should not allow applicants to put the cart before the horse," Sauer wrote. He also argued that the cities had "failed to establish any irreparable harm" while their appeal proceeded.
The National Immigration Law Center told Newsweek that the decision showed the High Court “rubber stamped another unjust immigration policy.”
“Without administrative closure, immigration judges will be forced to issue deportation orders to people on the path to lawful status simply because their immigration applications weren't processed in time,” Lynn Damiano Pearson, director of legal strategy at the center, said in a statement. “Today's decision will have dire consequences for immigrants, their families, and their communities.”
Newsweek has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here. Contact Newsweek editors for this