A coalition of cities governed by Democratic leadership requested the Supreme Court on October 15, 2026, to intervene in a ruling from June that blocked a Biden administration immigration rule. This rule permitted judges to close deportation proceedings indefinitely. The lawsuit was initiated by Texas officials, who argued against the rule. Following the lawsuit's filing, the Department of Justice announced its agreement with Texas, leading U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, appointed by former President George W. Bush, to issue a final judgment that nullified the rule.
The coalition, led by Baltimore, has sought to intervene in the case to defend the Biden-era rule but has faced challenges, prompting their appeal to the Supreme Court. In their emergency petition, the coalition stated, "This case involves an egregious new extension of this phenomenon. 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."
They further argued that the ruling eliminated a significant regulation that established important procedures in immigration courts without adequate judicial review or public participation, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Texas and other opponents of the rule contended that the expanded authority for judges to close cases without resolution allowed illegal immigrants to evade removal indefinitely.
The Democratic coalition asserted that the DOJ's refusal to defend the rule bypassed the APA's established process for revoking federal regulations. They cautioned that upholding the district court's ruling could set a precedent allowing future administrations to disregard proper rulemaking procedures when repealing regulations they oppose.
The emergency petition warned, "If a judgment procured through such open collusion is allowed to remain in effect, any agency can avoid the strictures of the APA by advertising its unwillingness to defend a disfavored regulation and by immediately acquiescing to nationwide relief."
The Biden-era rule that was invalidated had expanded immigration judges' capabilities to close removal proceedings, effectively removing cases from the docket without determining the individual's removability from the United States.
There is no specific timeline for the Supreme Court to address emergency petitions, meaning the justices could either reject the petition or request further responses at any time. A decision on the petition may be rendered within the following week.