Original Date Announced

EOIR Acting Director Owen issued Policy Memorandum (PM) 25-29, rescinding and cancelling Director’s Memorandum (DM) 22-03, “Administrative Closure.” DM 22-03, issued during the Biden administration, provided guidance on the use of administrative closure by EOIR adjudicators and encouraged their application where appropriate. (Administrative closure is a judicial tool that pauses removal proceedings, temporarily removing a case from an immigration judge's active calendar or from the Board of Immigration Appeals active docket, allowing the immigration judge or Board to resume proceedings once the case is ripe for adjudication.)

PM 25-29 asserts that subsequent rulemaking issued on 5/29/24, “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings,” superseded the DM and rendered it unnecessary. Characterizing administrative closure as "an amnesty program," the memo further argues that many of the assertions in the DM were “either factually or legally dubious” and that EOIR’s use of administrative closure “was an unmitigated disaster from a policy standpoint.”

Trump 2.0 [ID #1688]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.06.22 Complaint - Texas v. DOJ

The state of Texas filed suit against the DOJ to challenge the 2024 final rule described above that authorized immigration judges to administratively close cases “in the exercise of discretion” and “upon the motion of a party.” Texas asserts that rule unlawfully expands the use of administrative closure to "transform[] it from a docket management tool into indefinite permission to remain in the United States." As support, it references EOIR PM 25-29 (the subject of the entry above) for the proposition that "EOIR has itself admitted that 'there is no reliable evidence that administrative closure aids docket management; rather, the opposite has shown to be true.'" The complaint alleges that the rule exceeds DOJ's authority under the INA and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. Texas v. Department of Justice, No. 7:26-cv-00070 (N.D. Tex.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.06.22 Motion for Consent Judgment - Texas v. DOJ

The same day that Texas filed its complaint, Texas and DOJ jointly moved for entry of consent judgment vacating the 2024 DOJ final rule on administrative closure. The parties agreed that the final rule is unlawful and should be set aside under the APA. Texas v. Department of Justice, No. 7:26-cv-00070 (N.D. Tex.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2026.06.22 Order - Texas v. DOJ

The court granted the parties' motion for entry of a consent judgment, vacating DOJ’s 2024 final rule as in excess of statutory authority and contrary to law. The court further declared that no statute authorizes immigration judges to indefinitely administratively close or suspend adjudication of a case before them and enjoined DOJ in the future from "promulgating regulations that permit immigration judges the authority to administratively close removal proceedings without reaching the merits of a case absent an express statutory basis to do so." Texas v. Department of Justice, No. 7:26-cv-00070 (N.D. Tex.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**