Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven ask Supreme Court to block Texas-DOJ deal invalidating immigration rule

On October 9, 2026, Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block an agreement between Texas and the Trump administration that invalidated a Biden-era immigration regulation. The regulation authorized immigration judges to administratively close low-profile cases, such as those involving neglected juveniles, for docket efficiency. Represented by Democracy Forward, the cities accused the Justice Department and Texas of egregious collusion.

Supreme Court emergency intervention

• ▪Democracy Forward Foundation represents Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven, and Centro Legal de la Raza after lower federal courts turned away their requests to intervene in the litigation.
• ▪The emergency application from Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven was submitted to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees emergency filings arising from Texas.
• ▪Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven, and legal aid group Centro Legal de la Raza accused Texas and the Trump administration of egregious collusion to undo agency action without defending the regulation.
• ▪Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 9, 2026, seeking to block a Texas-DOJ agreement invalidating the administrative closure regulation.

Texas lawsuit and legal challenge

• ▪In June 2026, Texas filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Biden-era immigration regulation that authorized immigration judges to administratively close certain low-profile court cases.
• ▪The Justice Department stated in lower court filings that allowing immigration judges to pause cases indefinitely subverts statutory directives established by Congress.
• ▪On the same day Texas filed its lawsuit in June 2026, the Trump administration conceded the administrative closure regulation was unlawful, leading a federal judge to halt its implementation nationwide.
• ▪Texas argued in its lawsuit that the Biden-era regulation drastically expanded administrative closure to give noncitizens indefinite permission to remain in the United States.

Debatable claims

• ▪Municipalities should be permitted to intervene in federal litigation to defend abandoned regulations
• ▪Administrative closure in immigration courts subverts statutory directives established by Congress
• ▪Federal agency concessions that invalidate regulations without court defense bypass administrative law