The Supreme Court of the United States rejected an emergency request this Tuesday to reinstate the regulation that allowed immigration judges to temporarily suspend certain deportation proceedings while migrants sought other legal avenues to remain in the country.
The decision, issued on October 27 without a written explanation or recorded dissenting votes, leaves in place a court order that blocks the regulation approved during Joe Biden's administration in 2024.
The outcome favors the position of the government of Donald Trump and the state of Texas, which had agreed to repeal that regulation.
The Supreme Court did not make a definitive ruling on the substance of the dispute, but its decision currently prevents the reinstatement of the administrative closure powers outlined in the challenged regulation.
What is administrative closure and why does it matter?
The administrative closure is a procedural tool used for decades in U.S. immigration courts.
It allows for the temporary withdrawal of a case from the active calendar without dismissing it or definitively resolving the individual's immigration status.
This mechanism could be used, for example, when a migrant was awaiting the resolution of a family petition, a humanitarian visa, or another procedure that could influence their deportation case.
Unlike a dismissal, administrative closure does not eliminate the procedure. The file remains inactive and can be reopened subsequently.
The Biden administration formalized this practice through a regulation in 2024, arguing that it facilitated the management of cases and helped ensure proper handling of the files.
According to government statistics cited by The Washington Post, approximately 360,000 migrants have received administrative closures since 1990.
How did the case reach the Supreme Court?
After Trump's return to the White House in January 2025, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), part of the Department of Justice, announced that it would not defend the 2024 regulation against a legal challenge.
In June 2026, Texas filed a lawsuit against that regulation.
The state argued that the administrative closure allowed for the indefinite prolongation of the stay of certain immigrants without legal status in the United States.
On the same day the lawsuit was filed, Texas and the Department of Justice reached an agreement to nullify the regulation.
The federal judge Reed O'Connor, in Wichita Falls, approved the agreement, which blocked its enforcement nationwide.
The cities of Baltimore, Columbus, and New Haven, along with the organization Centro Legal de la Raza, sought to intervene in the process to defend the regulation.
The plaintiffs, represented by Democracy Forward, argued that the agreement between Texas and the federal government had allowed them to eliminate a regulation without following the ordinary administrative procedure.
They also argued that the administrative closure favored the efficiency of the courts and protected procedural guarantees, especially in situations involving crime victims and vulnerable minors.
After their attempts to intervene in the lower courts were denied, they appealed to the Supreme Court through an emergency request.
The Department of Justice opposed that request, arguing that the cities and the suing organization had not demonstrated sufficient standing to intervene nor a direct harm that would justify the requested measure.
The Supreme Court rejected the request, meaning that the judicial blockade of the regulation remains in effect while the legal dispute continues.
How can the decision affect Cubans in the United States?
The resolution may have consequences for Cubans facing deportation proceedings while awaiting responses to immigration applications that could allow them to remain legally in the United States.
Among the procedures that may coincide with an expulsion process are family petitions and certain applications for humanitarian protection.
The administrative closure allowed, in cases where it was appropriate, to temporarily remove the file from the court calendar while those matters were being resolved.
The 2024 regulatory blockade restricts the availability of that tool.
The decision adds to other recent changes in immigration procedures.
In October of this year, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) restricted the possibility of postponing deportation proceedings solely based on the existence of certain pending applications, such as a U visa or a family petition I-130.
The Supreme Court's ruling does not automatically order the reopening of all cases that had already been closed administratively.
It does not mean that all migrants with pending applications should be deported, nor does it, on its own, eliminate any other legal avenues for requesting a deferral.
Its immediate effect is to keep the federal regulation of 2024 blocked, which authorized administrative closure under certain circumstances.
The situation of each migrant will depend on their file, the available procedural measures, and the decisions of the competent authorities.
Related videos:
Filed under: