Motion to Intervene Challenges Unprecedented Consent Judgment that Eliminated Longstanding Immigration Court Procedures Without Meaningful Judicial Review

August 11, 2026 - Texas – The cities of Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven, alongside Centro Legal de la Raza, filed an emergency motion to intervene in Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice. They seek to defend an immigration practice after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to defend it and instead colluded with Texas to invalidate it through a consent judgment entered the same day the lawsuit was filed. The proposed intervenors are represented by Democracy Forward and Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann LLP.

The challenged regulation governs administrative closure, a longstanding case-management tool that allows immigration judges to temporarily pause certain removal proceedings for individuals already lawfully pursuing immigration relief with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — for instance, as abused or neglected children or victims of violent crime in the U.S. The rule helps immigration courts manage increasingly crowded dockets, protects due process, supports public safety by allowing victims and witnesses of crime to continue cooperating with law enforcement while seeking immigration relief, and enables local governments and legal services organizations to serve their communities more effectively.

Intervenors argue that DOJ  and Texas colluded to eliminate the regulation without the adversarial process required in federal court or the notice and comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act. They ask the court to allow them to defend the rule and appeal the consent judgment because the decision directly harms local governments, immigrant communities, and legal services providers nationwide.

“This DOJ action undermines the safety of our communities,” said Baltimore Mayor Brandon M. Scott. “The U visa program is a necessary tool that protects Baltimore residents who have witnessed a crime or been the victim of a crime from deportation. It provides these brave individuals with the opportunity to work, pay taxes, and live in our communities, while also supporting the critical work of our law enforcement partners.”

“Allowing judges the discretion to manage their immigration dockets better protects due process, allows crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with law enforcement, and defends the dignity and rights of those who follow the rules as they work within the legal system to make a better life for themselves in America,” said Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein. “That’s why we’re intervening in this case and pushing to defend this long-held, commonsense approach to immigration cases.”

“We should all be united in wanting everyone to be safe from harm in our communities and be afforded due process in our courts. The U visa program is critical to protecting individuals who have been victims of violent crimes and are cooperating with local law enforcement to help bring people to justice,” said New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker. “The US DOJ’s actions defy common sense, make our communities less safe, and are another example of President Trump’s cruel and inhumane policies that are harming New Haven residents and communities across the country.”

“Hundreds of our clients are eligible for lawful immigration status—as neglected and abused children, minors seeking asylum, and victims of violent crime in the U.S.—but the Trump administration is pushing these vulnerable individuals toward deportation instead of working with Congress to address severe immigration backlogs, forcing attorneys to defend them with inadequate resources,” said Centro Legal de la Raza Immigrants’ Rights’ Directing Attorney Abby Sullivan Engen. “We are intervening to stop this unlawful attempt to weaponize the immigration courts against our clients.”

“The Trump-Vance administration cannot simply set aside duly promulgated regulations by declining to defend them in court and entering collusive settlement agreements without giving affected communities an opportunity to be heard,” said Simon Brewer, Counsel at Democracy Forward. “When agencies abandon the legal processes Congress established for changing regulations, they undermine the fundamental principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness that our democracy depends on. Our clients are fighting to ensure the courts hear from the communities who will face the real-world consequences of this unprecedented effort to sidestep both judicial review and the rulemaking process.”

The intervenors seek to appeal the district court’s consent judgment, arguing that the litigation lacked the genuine adversity required by law, violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s rulemaking requirements, and vacated a federal regulation affecting communities across the country without allowing those most directly impacted an opportunity to be heard.

The case is Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice, and the legal team at Democracy Forward includes Ally Scher, Simon Brewer, Joshua Salzman, Paul Wolfson, and Brian Netter.

Read the filing here.

Click here to read more about the Trump-Vance administration’s collusive settlement strategy.

Source: Democracy Forward