A federal judge in Texas has blocked a Biden administration immigration rule that allowed judges to close deportation proceedings indefinitely, ending the policy the same day Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and a conservative legal group challenged it in court. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor entered a final consent judgment vacating the rule after the Trump administration’s Justice Department agreed with Texas that the regulation should be set aside. The ruling eliminates a key discretionary tool that removal-defense practitioners have relied on to pause cases while clients pursue alternative immigration benefits.
What changed
The lawsuit, filed in the Wichita Falls Division of the Northern District of Texas by Paxton and Trump-aligned America First Legal on Monday, challenged a 2024 DOJ rule enacted under former President Joe Biden that expanded immigration judges’ authority to administratively close removal proceedings.
Administrative closure removes a case from an immigration judge’s active docket without resolving whether an immigrant is removable from the United States. Under the Biden-era rule, immigration judges could close cases after considering arguments from both the government and the immigrant, particularly when the person was pursuing another immigration benefit that could allow them to remain in the country legally.
The same day the lawsuit was filed, the parties reached a settlement, and the court entered a final consent judgment vacating the rule and permanently enjoining its enforcement. The court ruled that the policy exceeded statutory authority and ordered it vacated, effectively ending the use of administrative closure in immigration proceedings. The court also barred federal agencies from enforcing similar rules without explicit legal backing.
Why it matters
According to AFL, the number of administratively closed immigration cases grew from roughly 278,000 in January 2021 to nearly 392,000 by January 2025. The organization argued that once cases were removed from active dockets, many remained unresolved for years. The permanent injunction now prevents EOIR from enforcing the 2024 rule that permitted broad administrative closure.
For removal-defense practitioners, this creates immediate uncertainty. Administrative closure has been a standard motion to pause proceedings while clients pending I-130 or other benefit applications. Immigration judges who relied on the 2024 rule’s expansion of closure authority now face a constraint: judges may no longer have the same discretion to close cases administratively without clear legal backing. You will need to reassess which cases are viable for closure motions and be prepared to argue any closure request under narrower statutory authority.
The rapid settlement—the sequence of events brought the litigation to a close within hours of its filing—signals that the Trump administration’s Department of Justice did not defend the Biden-era rule, choosing instead to vacate it immediately.
Way forward
- Audit your pending cases: Review any clients with administratively closed removal proceedings. Understand what their status is under the new rule and whether their cases remain safe on the inactive docket or may be re-opened.
- Reassess closure strategy: If you are representing clients in active removal proceedings, do not assume that administrative closure is available as a routine tactic. Research your specific circuit and immigration court’s post-ruling posture on closure authority.
- Document alternative immigration benefits: If administrative closure is unavailable or constrained, strengthen motions by documenting that the client is actively pursuing an approved visa petition, family-based sponsorship, or other benefit that could render removal moot. Some judges may still close cases when a benefit is genuinely pending.
- Prepare for re-opening notices: Monitor for any government motions to re-open administratively closed cases that may have been kept inactive under the Biden-era rule. Be ready to argue against re-opening if the client’s status has changed or the underlying benefit has been approved.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Folaform is a technology and content company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; the rules affecting your case depend on your circuit, local immigration court practice, your client’s nationality, and their specific relief eligibility. Consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction to understand how this ruling affects your case. Additionally, immigration policy can change without notice, and court decisions may be appealed or reversed. You should verify all information against the primary source documents linked above and follow ongoing developments in your relevant circuit.