The Supreme Court of the United States is considering an emergency request that could determine the future of hundreds of thousands of paused immigration cases, including those of thousands of Cubans.
The docket number 26A500, City of Baltimore v. Texas, was submitted on October 9 before Judge Samuel Alito and is still pending resolution.
On Thursday, October 22, both the Trump Administration —through Attorney General D. John Sauer— and the State of Texas filed their opposition briefs requesting that the Court deny the requested suspension. The following day, the applicants submitted their reply.
What is "administrative closure" and why does it matter?
The administrative closure allows immigration judges to remove a case from the active calendar without resolving it while the immigrant awaits, for example, the approval of a visa, a family petition I-130, or a status adjustment.
The Biden administration reinstated this tool through the “2024 Rule” (89 Fed. Reg. 46,742). However, on June 22, 2026, Texas sued the federal government, and on that same day, both parties signed a consent agreement before Judge Reed O'Connor, which nullified the rule nationwide. The Trump administration did not defend it.
Baltimore, New Haven, Columbus, and Centro Legal de la Raza attempted to intervene in August to defend the rule, but the court denied them standing.
The Fifth Circuit also denied the suspension in September, which brought the applicants directly to the Supreme Court.
The central argument: Collusion to evade the law?
The petitioners accuse the Government and Texas of using the consent decree to eliminate a federal rule without following the ordinary legal procedure of notice and comment.
The lawyer Joshua Salzman from Democracy Forward warned that "if a ruling obtained through such collusion is allowed to remain in effect, any agency can evade the restrictions of the law simply by declaring its willingness to yield to a lawsuit."
The government and Texas respond that the applicants lack standing and that the ruling operates prospectively: it does not require the reopening of closed cases, but rather prohibits new closures without an explicit legal basis.
The direct impact on Cubans
According to statistics from the EOIR, by the third fiscal quarter of 2025, there were 361,614 inactive cases due to administrative closure nationwide, with an average duration of about 16.8 years.
Many Cubans undergoing deportation processes —with form I-220A, parole, or pending family petitions— have relied on this mechanism to buy time while USCIS resolved their applications.
The situation is worsening because the Immigration Appeals Board has already eliminated the favorable presumption for postponement for those awaiting a U visa or an I-130 petition, and the Visa Bulletin for October 2026 indicates delays of up to 14 years for Cuba in certain family categories.
Additionally, Cubans with I-94 who had closed cases have been detained by ICE in 2026 despite having pending residency applications with USCIS.
What can those with a paused case do?
Although the administrative closure is blocked, there are other tools available: continuances, motions to dismiss, and deferred action from the Director of the EOIR.
For those applying for a U visa, USCIS offers the Good Faith Determination process, which can grant work authorization while waiting for the visa.
Those who have a case that has been administratively closed can check its status on the EOIR case inquiry portal using their A number, or call 1-800-898-7180. Given the accumulation of recent changes in immigration policy, consulting an immigration attorney is essential.
The Supreme Court has not set a deadline to resolve the emergency request, so the uncertainty for the more than 361,000 cases paused nationwide could extend for weeks.
Related videos:
Filed under: