Three cities and Centro Legal de la Raza have asked the Supreme Court to pause a consent judgment between Texas and the Department of Justice that struck down a 2024 regulation allowing immigration judges to administratively close some deportation cases. The challengers say the agreement was the product of 'egregious collusion' and that the DOJ effectively allowed Texas to dictate the outcome without going through the required notice-and-comment process.
According to the source, the case was filed in the Wichita Falls division of the Northern District of Texas, where Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor is the only judge. Within hours, the DOJ and Texas asked him to enter final judgment for the state, which he did, also barring the Executive Office for Immigration Review from adopting a similar rule in the future. The cities—Baltimore, New Haven, and Columbus—and Centro Legal sought to intervene to defend the rule, but O'Connor denied standing.
The challengers' lawyer, Joshua Salzman, argued that the judgment was indefensible and that allowing it to stand would let agencies bypass administrative-law requirements by agreeing to nationwide relief. He noted that the Supreme Court had granted review of a related question five years ago but dismissed the case without deciding it, leaving a substantial continuing need for the Court to address whether litigation tactics can substitute for notice-and-comment rescission.