Skip to main content

Case: State of Texas v. United States Department of Justice

7:26-cv-00070 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Filed Date: June 22, 2026

Closed Date: June 22, 2026

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case challenged a Department of Justice (DOJ) rule, adopted in 2024, that rescinded a 2020 rule limiting immigration judges’ authority to administratively close immigration cases. To administratively close a case is to remove it from the court’s active docket, pausing adjudication until a later date. Critics of the rule, including the plaintiff, argued that the rule allowed immigration judges to effectively grant amnesty to unauthorized immigrants. On June 22, 2026, the State of Texas file…

This case challenged a Department of Justice (DOJ) rule, adopted in 2024, that rescinded a 2020 rule limiting immigration judges’ authority to administratively close immigration cases. To administratively close a case is to remove it from the court’s active docket, pausing adjudication until a later date. Critics of the rule, including the plaintiff, argued that the rule allowed immigration judges to effectively grant amnesty to unauthorized immigrants.

On June 22, 2026, the State of Texas filed this lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Texas sued the DOJ under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Take Care Clause in Article II of the United States Constitution. First, Texas argued that the rule violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which states: “At the conclusion of the proceeding the immigration judge shall decide whether an alien is removable from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(1)(A). By allowing for immigration judges to administratively close cases, Texas argues that the rule allows them not to decide on an immigrant’s status. Second, Texas argued that the rule was an arbitrary and capricious agency action since it did not consider states’ reliance interests in effective adjudication of removal proceedings, the cost of keeping unauthorized immigrants in the United States due to administrative closures, how the rule may incentivize unauthorized immigration, how the rule interplays with other “policies of nonenforcement”, or separation-of-function concerns, and was pretextual, pointing to a statement by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (a sub-agency of the DOJ tasked with conducting removal proceedings) that administrative closures hinder, rather than aiding, docket management. Third, Texas argued that the rule bypassed the notice-and-comment period required by the APA for all rules in the Federal Register. Finally, Texas argued that the rule violated the Take Care Clause by allowing immigration judges to close all removal cases where the defendant only violated immigration law. Texas sought a declaratory judgment holding that the rule violated the APA and INA and that no statute authorizes immigration judges to administratively close or suspend adjudication of cases, vacatur of the rule, and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing the rule.

The case was assigned to District Judge Reed O’Connor.

Immediately after the complaint was filed, the parties agreed to a consent decree, under which the DOJ abandoned the 2024 rule. On that same day, June 22, 2026, the Court ordered the rule invalid, holding that no statute authorizes immigration judges to administratively close or suspend adjudication of cases.

 

Summary Authors

Sam Black (8/3/2026)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73513959/parties/state-of-texas-v-united-states-department-of-justice/


Judge(s)

O'Connor, Reed Charles (Texas)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Rogers, James K (Texas)

Tebo, Kyle (Texas)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case
1

7:26-cv-00070

State of Texas Original Complaint

State of Texas v. United States Department of Justice et al.

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

Complaint
3

7:26-cv-00070

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment

State of Texas v. United States Department of Justice et al.

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

Pleading / Motion / Brief
5

7:26-cv-00070

Order and Final Judgment

State of Texas v. Department of Justice et al.

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

Order/Opinion

2026 WL 1803245

Resources

Resources related to this case
Title Description External URL Date / External URL

Final Rule: Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings

https://www.federalregister.gov/...

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73513959/state-of-texas-v-united-states-department-of-justice/

Last updated July 26, 2026, 6:43 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Todd Blanche, Department of Justice, Daren K Margolin filed by State of Texas. (Filing fee $405; Receipt number ATXNDC-16551159) Summons(es) not requested at this time. In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy Requirements and Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C, # 4 Cover Sheet) (Tebo, Kyle) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

1 Exhibit(s) Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit(s) Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit(s) Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Cover Sheet

View on PACER

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

Clearinghouse
2

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by State of Texas. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (Tebo, Kyle) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

RECAP
3

NOTICE of Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment filed by State of Texas (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Tebo, Kyle) Modified event per document on 6/22/2026 (hcc). (Entered: 06/22/2026)

1 Proposed Order

View on PACER

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

Clearinghouse
4

New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. File to: No court file needed. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (No magistrate judge assigned). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (hcc) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

RECAP
5

ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT: Having considered the Motion 3, the Complaint (ECF No. 1 ), and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLARES that the challenged regulation, Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings, 89 Fed. Reg. 46,742 (May 29, 2024), is in excess of statutory authority and contrary to law. (Ordered by Chief District Judge Reed O'Connor on 6/22/2026) (hcc) (Entered: 06/22/2026)

June 22, 2026

June 22, 2026

Clearinghouse

Case Details

State / Territory:

Texas

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 22, 2026

Closing Date: June 22, 2026

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The plaintiff is the State of Texas.

Plaintiff Type(s):

State Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

United States Department of Justice

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Take Care Clause

Other Dockets:

Northern District of Texas 7:26-cv-00070

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: None Yet / None

Relief Sought:

Declaratory judgment

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Deportation - judicial review

Recommended Citation