Democratic cities led by Baltimore asked the Supreme Court to stop a June ruling that ends a Biden-era rule letting judges close deportation cases indefinitely after the Trump DOJ refused to defend it.

A coalition of Democratic-run cities, led by Baltimore, went to the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to halt a federal-court judgment that throws out a Biden administration immigration rule. The rule let immigration judges close deportation proceedings with no set end date.

Texas officials sued the federal government over the rule in June. Hours after that filing, the Department of Justice said it agreed the rule should be set aside. The Trump administration declined to defend it.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a nominee of former President George W. Bush, then entered a final consent judgment tossing the rule. That June ruling would block the Biden-era policy.

The cities tried to intervene in the case to defend the rule and failed. That left them asking the high court for relief, the Washington Examiner reported.

Texas sued. DOJ folded the same day.

The sequence was fast. Texas filed in June. The Justice Department sided with the state hours later. Judge O’Connor entered the consent judgment that ends the rule.

The Biden rule gave immigration judges power to shut down deportation cases indefinitely. Critics of that approach have long argued it stalls removals and leaves cases hanging. The cities want that tool kept in place.

Baltimore leads the coalition. Other city names were not detailed in the initial account. The group’s failed bid to intervene pushed the fight to the Supreme Court, where emergency and high-profile filings have become a regular feature of national fights, including when the Court cleared a Trump administration move on election-related data tools.

Blue cities defend a rule the federal government abandoned

Local Democratic leadership is now trying to salvage a Biden-era policy Washington will not defend. The federal government was the defendant. Once DOJ agreed the rule should fall, the consent judgment followed.

That leaves a basic accountability question. Who sets immigration enforcement policy, elected national leadership and the agencies charged with removals, or city governments that prefer the old freeze option?

The cities’ Supreme Court ask aims to freeze the June judgment itself so the rule can keep operating while the fight continues. Exact docket labels and the full list of coalition members were not laid out in the first report.

High-court emergency practice draws sharp political heat from all sides, and Justice Jackson has even taken aim at the Court’s emergency docket in other disputes. This filing puts deportation procedure back on that same stage.

Consent judgment closed the door in district court

Judge O’Connor’s final consent judgment was the operative blow. After DOJ aligned with Texas, the court entered judgment tossing the rule rather than running a full contested defense of the Biden policy.

The cities could not get into the case as intervenors. Their next step was the Supreme Court application on Thursday.

Similar Court fights over Trump-era and administration priorities have stacked up in recent terms, from mail-in voting disputes to other executive-branch rules, including a 6-3 ruling that cleared a Trump mail-in voting order ahead of midterms. This one centers on whether a discarded Biden deportation-closure rule gets a second life.

For now, the legal posture is plain. Texas sued. The Trump DOJ declined to defend the Biden rule and agreed it should be set aside. A federal judge entered judgment ending it. Democratic cities, led by Baltimore, want the Supreme Court to stop that result.

Open borders rhetoric and endless case freezes have real victims, lawful residents, taxpayers, and communities that live with delayed removals. City politicians should not get to override a lawful end to a rule the federal government itself will not stand behind.