Supreme Court Backs Trump, Keeps Biden-Era Deportation Rule Blocked

• Supreme Court declines to reinstate a Biden-era immigration rule.
• The Trump administration opposed preserving the policy.
• Approximately 360,000 migrants have benefited from administrative closure since 1990.

The Supreme Court sided with Trump on Tuesday, declining to reinstate a rule that allowed immigration judges to temporarily suspend certain deportation proceedings. The decision favors the Donald Trump administration, which opposed maintaining the Biden-era immigration policy.

According to EFE, citing U.S. media reports, the justices issued a brief, unsigned order without providing an explanation. The Supreme Court's decision leaves in place a lower court ruling blocking the regulation that several cities had sought to preserve.

The dispute centers on a practice known as administrative closure, which allowed immigration judges to temporarily pause certain deportation cases and help reduce immigration court backlogs.

What Immigration Rule Was at the Center of the Dispute?

The rule that supporters sought to reinstate was adopted during former President Joe Biden's administration. It allowed immigration judges to administratively close certain cases within the immigration court system.

Although the regulation was adopted under the Democratic administration, administrative closure has a much longer history. According to information cited by EFE, immigration courts have used the practice for decades.

Since 1990, approximately 360,000 migrants have benefited from administrative closure, according to government statistics cited by the news agency. This figure represents the cumulative total since that year, rather than cases handled exclusively during Biden's presidency.

This longstanding practice is at the heart of the legal dispute. The Supreme Court's decision concerns whether the regulation should remain blocked, rather than an individual review of the cases involving those migrants.

Trump Administration Stopped Defending Biden's Immigration Policy

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, his administration announced that it would no longer defend the immigration policy introduced by his predecessor.

Texas subsequently challenged the regulation in federal court. The Trump administration's decision not to defend the rule, combined with the resulting legal dispute, eventually brought the matter before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tuesday's Supreme Court order leaves in place the lower court decision blocking the Biden-era regulation, consistent with the Trump administration's position and contrary to the efforts of those seeking to preserve it.

Supreme Court Deportation Ruling: Three Cities Sought to Preserve the Policy

Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Connecticut, three cities with significant immigrant populations, participated in legal efforts to preserve the Biden administration's immigration rule.

Together with an immigrant rights advocacy organization, the cities sought to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the regulation. Lower courts rejected their requests, leading them to seek relief from the Supreme Court.

The justices' brief, unsigned order left the regulation blocked. As a result, the cities and the advocacy group were unsuccessful in their attempt to preserve administrative closure under the disputed immigration rule.

Supreme Court Deportation Ruling: Advocacy Groups Warn of Its Impact

Immigrant rights organizations argue that administrative closure provided protection for certain migrants by temporarily pausing deportation proceedings, according to EFE. Their concerns focus on the consequences of restricting a practice that immigration courts have used for decades.

The procedure also helped immigration courts manage their caseloads. The dispute therefore involves both the administration of immigration proceedings and the potential consequences for individuals facing deportation.

The Supreme Court's decision leaves the Trump administration's position in place, while advocates for the regulation continue to emphasize the protections that administrative closure provided to certain migrants.