The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to restore a Biden-era regulation allowing for certain deportation proceedings to be temporarily paused. The decision was seemingly unanimous.
In its unsigned order, the high court rejected an emergency application by three Democrat-led cities to pause a consent judgment between the Justice Department and Texas. As described by SCOTUSblog, the agreement ended a Biden-era regulation that permitted “immigration judges to suspend some deportation proceedings — when, for example, a crime victim or witness is seeking immigration relief, such as asylum — while the challengers’ appeal in the lower federal courts is ongoing.”
Texas initially sued to end the rule in a lawsuit against the DOJ, which agreed with the Lone Star State and subsequently requested a federal judge to invalidate it. The agreement to end the regulation was approved by Texas-based Chief District Judge Reed O’Connor, a Bush 43 appointee.
Three cities — Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Connecticut — joined the legal battle along with Centro Legal de la Raza, a leftist-funded immigration group, in an attempt to uphold the Biden-era rule. O’Connor rejected their request to do so on the grounds that they lack standing. He more specifically dismissed the cities’ argument that “the elimination of the rule would cost them money because their taxpayers are likely to be deported,” according to SCOTUSblog.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the challengers’ emergency request to pause the DOJ and Texas’ consent judgment.
In the administration’s brief before SCOTUS, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer accused the cities of attempting “to improperly leverage a clear-cut dispute over intervention into a far-reaching attack on the merits of a consent judgment.” He further echoed arguments that the challengers lack standing to bring their request.
“For that same reason — and because they have failed to establish any irreparable harm pending the appeal of the denial of their motion to intervene — a stay pending appeal is plainly unwarranted,” the brief reads. “Objections about the merits of a consent judgment are no substitute for the threshold prerequisites of Article III standing.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton similarly contended in his state’s filing that the plaintiffs “fail each element of the demanding stay standard.” He also reasoned that the challengers “cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability” that the high court would agree to take up and hear the case on the merits.
The Supreme Court did not provide reasoning for its rejection of the cities’ application. There were no noted dissents in Tuesday’s order.
