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 in a Texas-led lawsuit that challenged the delays.
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 in the U.S., either through being married 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 Biden administration’s immigration rule, arguing in a 43-page lawsuit that it effectively granted “indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country.”
Lawsuits usually take several months to years to settle. But in this case, 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.
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. 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.
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. The cities also argued that they could lose tax revenue if their residents are deported.
On Tuesday, 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.
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.
Source link