Cities ask Supreme Court to block Texas-DOJ deal invalidating immigration rule

Three Democratic-controlled cities said Friday they asked the Supreme Court to revive an immigration regulation blocked under a deal struck by Texas and the Trump administration, accusing them of “egregious collusion.”

Texas sued over the Biden-era regulation in June. On the same day, the administration conceded it was unlawful, and a judge quickly entered an order halting implementation nationwide.

The cities — Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Conn. — alongside a legal aid group have been looking to intervene in the litigation to defend the regulation, but lower courts turned them away. It leaves them seeking emergency relief from the justices.

“This case involves an egregious new extension of this phenomenon,” the cities wrote in their application. “The government did not merely leverage a convenient loss to undo agency action, but rather, announced in advance that it would not defend a disfavored regulation and then colluded with the challenger from the moment that suit was filed.”

The underlying case concerns administrative closure , which gives immigration judges authority to remove certain low-profile cases from their calendars to promote docket efficiency or for other reasons. The cities emphasize that, for example, it allows neglected juveniles to pause their cases as they seek relief.

The practice had existed in some form for years, but Texas’s suit said the Biden-era regulation “drastically expands” it to effectively give people indefinite permission to remain in the country.

It’s a position supported by the Trump administration, which abandoned defending the regulation.

“But allowing immigration judges to exercise discretion by pausing a case indefinitely—often for decades, if not forever—would subvert Congress’s directive,” the Justice Department wrote to a lower court in the case.

The cities and the legal aid group — Centro Legal de la Raza — are represented by Democracy Forward Foundation. The group has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration, becoming one of the most prolific litigators challenging the president’s agenda in court.

It says Texas and the Justice Department weren’t adverse parties and the lower courts shouldn’t have entertained their deal.

“The adversity requirement is not a formality,” they wrote in their Supreme Court emergency appeal.

The cities’ request goes to Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency matters arising from Texas by default. He could act alone or refer it to the full court for a vote.