WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to revive a Biden-era rule that let immigration judges indefinitely pause certain deportation cases, rejecting an emergency plea from three U.S. cities and an immigrant-rights group and leaving a Trump administration-backed agreement with Texas in place.

The justices issued a one-sentence order denying the application, with no dissents noted publicly, according to U.S. News & World Report. The case, City of Baltimore, Maryland, et al. v. Texas, et al. (Docket No. 26A500), had been filed with the court on October 9.

Baltimore, New Haven, Connecticut, and Columbus, Ohio, joined with the nonprofit Centro Legal de la Raza to ask the justices to block a consent judgment issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Wichita Falls, Texas. That judgment, which the Trump administration and Texas jointly requested, struck down a 2024 Executive Office for Immigration Review rule that let judges indefinitely pause deportation cases — for example, when a crime victim or witness was separately pursuing another path to legal status.

A Deal the Cities Call Collusion

The cities and the legal-aid group argued that the federal government and Texas improperly worked together to secure a favorable ruling that would strip judges of the postponement power nationwide, according to the Boston Globe. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already declined to pause Judge O'Connor's decision while the challengers' appeal moves forward, prompting the emergency trip to the Supreme Court.

THE ORDER DOESN'T DECIDE WHETHER THE RULE IS LEGAL — IT JUST KEEPS IT BLOCKED WHILE THE FIGHT CONTINUES

Wednesday's order does not resolve the underlying legal question of whether the 2024 rule was lawful in the first place; it simply keeps the lower court's nationwide block in effect while the cities' appeal works its way through the courts. The application had gone first to Justice Samuel Alito, who oversees emergency matters from the 5th Circuit's region, before the full Court weighed in.

The ruling is the latest in a string of Supreme Court actions this term touching on immigration enforcement, following an October 21 decision rejecting a separate administration policy that restricted medical treatment for transgender federal inmates.

What's next: the underlying appeal over the rule's legality continues at the 5th Circuit, with no timeline yet for a ruling on the merits.