Supreme Court clears way for Trump administration immigration deal

Oct. 27 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that it will allow an agreement between the state of Texas and the Trump administration to move forward, affecting immigration court rules.

The high court did not give a reasoning for its decision in a one-sentence order. The agreement between the Justice Department and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is a settlement in a lawsuit filed by Paxton that seeks to remove judges’ discretion to end immigration cases.

The Trump administration and Paxton seek to claw back on a Biden administration policy that gave immigration judges the discretion to end cases in an effort to ease the strain on an over-burdened immigration court system.

Paxton filed a lawsuit against the government in 2025, arguing that the Biden-era policy, adopted in 2024, gives immigrants amnesty because it pauses or ends legal proceedings against them.

Texas and the Trump administration immediately agreed to settle the lawsuit, agreeing to end the discretion policy.

Those who support the discretion policy say it takes cases off of overloaded court dockets, particularly providing relief for victims of crime and juveniles who are in immigration proceedings.

President Joe Biden’s administration codified judicial discretion in immigration cases after the first Trump administration attempted to prohibit judges from using administrative closure.

City officials for Baltimore; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Conn.; argued that Paxton and the Trump administration were abusing the court system because they were colluding together, working on the same side despite being on opposite sides of the lawsuit. The lawsuit allowed the Trump administration to circumvent the administrative procedures required to undo government policy.

Solicitor General and former attorney for President Donald Trump, D. John Sauer, argued that the city officials did not have the legal grounds to intervene in the case because the policy in question does not directly involve them since it applies to immigration courts specifically.