Democratic-run cities ask Supreme Court to block June consent judgment that vacated Biden immigration rule
A coalition of Democratic-run cities asked the Supreme Court to halt a June consent judgment that set aside a Biden administration rule letting immigration judges close deportation proceedings indefinitely. The coalition, led by Baltimore, said the Justice Department declined to defend the rule and effectively colluded with Texas from the moment the lawsuit was filed.
AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 2 outlets' reporting · Full text read from 1 of 2 outletsHow it's made
What happened
Key facts
- In their emergency petition to the Supreme Court, the coalition accused the government of announcing it would not defend the regulation and of colluding with Texas from the moment the suit was filed (per Washington Examiner).
- The Washington Examiner reported that the coalition asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to halt the June ruling (per Washington Examiner, notus.org).
The brief
A coalition of Democratic-run cities led by Baltimore has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a June consent judgment that nullified a Biden administration rule permitting immigration judges to administratively close deportation proceedings indefinitely, the Washington Examiner reported.
The cities filed an emergency petition on Thursday seeking relief from the judgment that U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor entered after a Texas lawsuit challenged the regulation. According to the Washington Examiner, Texas officials sued the federal government in June over the immigration rule.
Within hours of that filing, the Department of Justice told the court it agreed with Texas that the rule should be set aside, and Judge Reed O’Connor then entered a final consent judgment that tossed the rule.
The coalition’s petition to the Supreme Court, the Washington Examiner reports, accuses the federal government of declining to defend the rule and of effectively collaborating with Texas from the outset of the litigation.
The cities wrote that 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,” language the Examiner reproduced from the emergency petition.
The Washington Examiner says the coalition has previously attempted to intervene in the Texas lawsuit to defend the Biden-era rule but was unsuccessful in lower courts. In the petition now before the Supreme Court, the coalition asks justices to halt the consent judgment while the legal questions move forward.
The Examiner’s account indicates the filing was made on a Thursday and describes the sequence in June that led to the consent judgment, naming the key actors: Texas officials as plaintiffs, the Department of Justice as having declined to defend the rule, and U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor as the judge who entered the final consent judgment.
The Examiner reproduced the coalition’s characterization of the government’s actions as collusion with the challenger from the moment the suit was filed.
The filing seeks emergency relief from the Supreme Court; the Washington Examiner noted that a decision on the petition could come quickly, though the Examiner did not provide a specific timetable or additional legal filings in its article.
Why it matters
- Residents of the cities in the coalition could face changes to how deportation proceedings are managed because the rule at issue allowed immigration judges to administratively close cases indefinitely, and the consent judgment removed that authority according to the Washington Examiner.
- Baltimore and the other coalition cities have a documented procedural interest in preserving the rule because they sought to intervene in the underlying Texas litigation to defend it but were denied in lower courts, per the Washington Examiner.
- The Department of Justice's decision to agree with Texas and not defend the rule, as alleged in the coalition's petition reproduced by the Washington Examiner, implicates how the federal government chooses which regulations to defend in court.
What to watch next
- Whether the Supreme Court grants the coalition’s emergency petition and temporarily halts the June consent judgment.
- Whether the Supreme Court schedules full briefing or oral argument on the coalition’s challenge to the consent judgment.
- Whether the Department of Justice files any new briefs or changes its position in response to the coalition’s petition to the Supreme Court.
How it's being covered
Coverage analysisShow details2 source articles · 2 unique outletsCoverage mix: Too few rated· 1 RightWhere the outlets are based: US/Canada 50% · Unknown 50%
- Coverage is currently limited to 2 outlets.
How outlets' accounts compare
How we got here
The immediate backdrop is a June 2026 federal consent judgment that vacated a Biden-era regulation that had allowed immigration judges to administratively close or otherwise pause deportation proceedings; that judgment followed a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas in 2026 and was entered in federal court in June 2026. Before and during that litigation, the U.S.
Department of Justice announced it would not defend the Biden-era regulation when Texas brought its suit in 2026, according to filings and coalition statements from mid-2026.
Original sources
2 articles from 2 outletsEvery story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources
Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.