BThe Supreme Court just allowed Texas and the Justice Department to end a Biden-era rule that let immigration judges pause deportation cases while migrants sought asylum.
BPepper Moirraine posted on X that Trump's 'unusual legal gambit' paid off at the Supreme Court.
BNo noted dissents — but also no arguments, no briefing on the merits.
BRight. The Court let a deal between Texas and the DOJ go forward. The rule is gone.
BAdministrative closure let judges push cases to the side for years. That was a loophole, not a system.
BI'm not so quick to cheer.
BThe rule gave immigration judges a way to manage a docket of over three million cases. Now everything moves, whether there's a lawyer or an asylum interview ready or not.
BThat's exactly the problem — 'everything moves' is what should happen! You don't fix a backlog by hiding cases in a drawer.
BBut you also don't fix it by yanking a procedural tool through a friendly lawsuit instead of rulemaking. That's the part that bugs me.
BOh, come on. The Trump administration was elected to change immigration enforcement. This is change. The Court said fine.
BIt said fine to a consent judgment. It didn't uphold the policy. That's a real difference.
BNo noted dissents, Brian. Even the Court's liberal wing didn't object.
BEmergency docket decisions are often silent. No dissents isn't an endorsement. It's a shrug.
BYou'd argue with a signed confession.
BFair. But this shortcut is a separation-of-powers issue, not just immigration.
BI hear you. But the practical effect is a win for people waiting in line who actually show up. No more indefinite limbo.
BFor some, maybe. For others, it means a deportation order before their asylum claim is even heard. That's not nothing.
BAsylum claims should be decided promptly. Sitting for three years isn't due process either.
BI don't disagree. But the fix is more judges, more staff, more money. Not a backroom deal that maybe makes the backlog worse.
BThat's a fair argument, but it assumes this administration won't also push for resources. Why not both?
BBecause if the rule-making process is broken for this, it's broken for everything. Presidents can't just govern by settlement with friendly states.
BThey already do, and the Supreme Court just let this one through. If you hate it, elect someone who'll change it back.
BThat's exactly my point! We're swapping rule by administration for rule by litigation. It's a lousy way to run a republic.
BWe disagree on process. But we both agree this is a real change on the ground, effective now.
BYes. Immigration judges can no longer administratively close cases to wait out asylum or other relief. That's the headline.
BAnd on X, the talk is already about what it means for the backlog. Some call it a huge win.
BSome call it a dangerous shortcut. I'm somewhere in the middle — we'll know in a year if cases actually moved.
BThat's fair. We'll watch the numbers.
BLet's talk about what this actually changes for an immigration judge.
BBefore, if a migrant had a pending asylum claim with USCIS, the judge could close the removal case until that was resolved. That could take years.
BRight. Now the judge has to keep the case on the calendar, maybe set a hearing before the asylum office decides.
BWhich means more people in courtrooms, not fewer. That's what the backlog looks like when you're honest about it.
BThat's true, but it also means people could be ordered removed before a decision they're entitled to.
BIf they don't show or don't qualify, yes. But that's the system enforcing the law. I don't see the tragedy.
BThe tragedy is due process for people with real claims. You could have a legitimate asylum seeker deported because the clock ran out.
BThen their lawyer should move faster. That's not a reason to keep a case paused indefinitely.
BYou're ignoring the resource problem. There aren't enough lawyers, judges, or translators. Speeding up the clock without adding capacity just causes chaos.
BMaybe chaos is what forces Congress to act. I'm willing to risk it.
BI get why you'd say that. But I'd rather have a system that works than one that collapses to prove a point.
BFair enough. But today, the rule is gone. The Supreme Court allowed it, no dissents, and the fight over immigration enforcement just got faster.
BThat's the story. We'll see if the system can keep up.