The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present.
Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Filing Challenges Unprecedented Agreement Between Texas and DOJ that Dismantled Longstanding Immigration Court Procedures Without Meaningful Judicial Review
October 11, 2026 - Washington, D.C. — The cities of Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven, alongside Centro Legal de la Raza, are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a federal court judgment that allowed the Trump-Vance administration and Texas to eliminate longstanding immigration court procedures through collusive litigation that circumvented legal requirements, public participation, and meaningful judicial review.
Represented by Democracy Forward and Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann LLP, the applicants are asking SCOTUS to stay a consent judgment that struck down a federal regulation. The regulation allows immigration judges to temporarily pause certain deportation proceedings while individuals pursue lawful immigration relief. The applicants seek to preserve these protections while their appeal proceeds.
The dispute stems from Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice, in which Texas challenged a 2024 immigration court regulation governing administrative closure, a longstanding practice that allows immigration judges to temporarily pause removal proceedings. This process is particularly important for survivors of violent crime, abused and neglected children, and others pursuing immigration protections through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It also helps local law enforcement secure cooperation from immigrant crime victims and witnesses.
In June 2026, Texas filed its lawsuit, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), rather than defending its own regulation, immediately joined Texas in asking the court to invalidate it. That same day, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a judgment that eliminated the entire regulation on a nationwide basis and permanently restricted the federal government’s ability to adopt similar protections in the future. The cities and Centro Legal de la Raza promptly sought to intervene to defend the regulation, but their motion was denied. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also denied their request to pause the judgment.
The application argues that the administration’s actions represent a dangerous attempt to circumvent the Administrative Procedure Act and use collusive litigation to accomplish what would otherwise require a transparent public rulemaking process. The applicants warn that allowing the judgment to remain in effect threatens due process, undermines public safety, and puts vulnerable immigrants at greater risk of deportation before their applications for legal protections can be resolved.
“Allowing judges to continue having discretion on immigration cases protects due process, allows crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with law enforcement, and defends the rights of those who are working to make a better life for themselves here in America,” said Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein. “That’s why we’re asking the Supreme Court to uphold ‘judicial independence’ as a commonsense approach to immigration cases.”
“The United States should be a safe haven for individuals who have been victims of violent crimes, human trafficking and abuse as well as for those who are cooperating with local law enforcement to help bring violent criminals to justice. The actions by President Trump and Attorney General Blanche are not only cruel, they are short-sighted and make our residents and communities less safe,” said New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker. “Last year, the New Haven Police Department certified eligibility for 36 U visas. These are our neighbors who need and deserve our protection and support, and we need their cooperation to help solve crimes. Judges should continue to have discretion on these sensitive, high-stakes cases – and we’re asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to the Trump Administration’s inhumane actions that would eliminate this long-standing judicial practice.”
“The Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful collusion with Texas, if allowed to stand, would eliminate critical tools immigration courts have used for decades to conserve resources and pause removal proceedings for people already lawfully seeking immigration status—as neglected and abused children, minors seeking asylum, and victims of violent crime in the United States,” said Centro Legal de la Raza Immigrants’ Rights’ Directing Attorney Abby Sullivan Engen. “We call on the Supreme Court to stop the administration from this blatantly unlawful attempt to further its cruel and chaotic immigration agenda.”
“Rather than follow the law and allow the public to be heard, the Department of Justice colluded with Texas to erase longstanding immigration procedures in a single day, putting families, survivors of violence, and entire communities at risk,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “This is not how our legal system is supposed to work. No administration should be allowed to manufacture a legal defeat to evade accountability, silence affected communities, and rewrite federal policy behind closed doors. We are asking the Supreme Court to put a stop to this dangerous abuse of the judicial process.”
The applicants argue that the judgment threatens to disrupt immigration proceedings nationwide, including cases involving individuals eligible for lawful status but who face deportation while their applications remain pending. They ask SCOTUS to preserve the regulation while the courts consider their challenge to the denial of intervention and the underlying judgment.
The case is City of Baltimore v. Texas (Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice). The legal team at Democracy Forward in this case includes Joshua Salzman, Simon Brewer, Allyson Scher, Paul Wolfson, and Brian Netter.
Read the filing here.
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
Source: Democracy Forward Foundation