Supreme Court Leaves Texas-DOJ Immigration Deal in Place; Judge Rules LA Prosecutor Essayli Serving Unlawfully; Refugee Rule Paused: Oct 28

Better Call Claude Briefing — Oct 28, 2026

The Supreme Court declined to revive a Biden-era rule that let immigration judges pause some deportation cases, leaving in place a same-day settlement between Texas and the Justice Department that critics call collusive. A federal judge ruled that Los Angeles' top federal prosecutor, Bill Essayli, is serving unlawfully. A Boston judge paused a new rule giving refugees only 10 days to fight the loss of their status, and a D.C. judge put a longer hold on the administration's plans for a public golf course. In legal tech, Latham & Watkins teamed up with Harvey, Stoel Rives went firm-wide with Legora, and LexisNexis expanded Protégé. General news roundup only — not legal advice.

Supreme Court leaves Texas-DOJ deal that erased an immigration-court rule in place

On Tuesday, October 27, the Supreme Court denied an emergency request in Baltimore v. Texas (No. 26A500) in a brief unsigned order, with no noted dissents. The dispute is about "administrative closure," a 2024 rule from the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review that lets immigration judges set aside some deportation cases, for example while a crime victim, witness, or neglected child seeks separate relief from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. In June, Texas sued in Wichita Falls, where Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor is the only federal judge. Within hours, Texas and the Justice Department jointly asked for a final judgment throwing out the rule and barring the agency from adopting a similar one, and O'Connor signed it the same day. Baltimore, Columbus, New Haven, and the legal-services group Centro Legal de la Raza tried to intervene, calling the arrangement "egregious collusion" that erased a regulation without notice-and-comment rulemaking. O'Connor found they lacked standing, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices the challengers were trying to "put the cart before the horse." Why it matters: the rule stays gone while the challengers' appeal continues at the Fifth Circuit, and the case is a test of whether an administration and a friendly state can use a consent judgment to undo a regulation that would otherwise take formal rulemaking to repeal.

Sources: SCOTUSblog, AP News, Bloomberg Law

Judge rules Bill Essayli is unlawfully serving as Los Angeles' top federal prosecutor

Also on Tuesday, Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Bill Essayli "is unlawfully serving as a 'de facto' United States Attorney" for the Central District of California. Essayli has led the office under the title of first assistant U.S. attorney after Seabright found last year that he wasn't lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney. This time the judge concluded the Justice Department had delegated powers so sweeping that Essayli effectively still holds the top job, which by law requires Senate confirmation or a valid temporary appointment. Seabright disqualified Essayli from participating in or supervising two prosecutions, against Jaime Hector Ramirez (a felon-in-possession firearms case) and Tu Anh Tran (a stolen-shipment case), but declined to dismiss the indictments and delayed his order, giving the government five business days to seek a stay pending appeal. Appeals courts have already ruled against similar arrangements for prosecutors in Albany and Nevada, and the government has asked the Supreme Court to take those cases. Essayli said his office disagrees and that "ultimately, this question will be decided by the Supreme Court." Why it matters: if the courts keep rejecting these workarounds, defendants across several districts could challenge who is supervising their prosecutions, and the administration would have to seek Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys.

Sources: Los Angeles Times, AP News, CBS Los Angeles

Boston judge pauses rule giving refugees 10 days to contest losing their status

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston on Tuesday temporarily blocked a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rule, issued October 14, that cut the time refugees have to respond to a notice of intent to terminate their status from 30 days to 10. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated the change could affect as many as 186,000 refugees. Through November 6, the government can't enforce the rule, can't enforce termination notices issued under the shorter deadline between October 14 and October 27, and can't end anyone's refugee status for failing to answer those notices. Kobick said she was preserving the status quo until the judge assigned to the case can decide whether to block the rule for longer; the order doesn't decide the merits. The class action was filed Monday by refugee advocacy and service groups and four refugees from Afghanistan, Colombia, Ethiopia, and Iraq, and it also challenges a re-vetting of refugees admitted under President Biden and an indefinite hold on refugees' green card applications, which this order doesn't touch. A USCIS spokesperson called the suit a "frivolous attempt to disrupt" immigration enforcement. Why it matters: refugees who recently got a 10-day notice should know those deadlines are on hold for now, and anyone in that situation should talk to an immigration attorney or accredited representative quickly.

Sources: The Hill, Reuters (via Yahoo News), Democracy Forward (plaintiffs' counsel)

Judge extends block on changes to D.C.'s East Potomac golf course

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a 70-page preliminary injunction barring the administration from cutting down, substantially pruning, or damaging any more trees at East Potomac Park, the century-old public golf course in Washington that President Trump wants to rebuild as a championship venue. The government removed about 430 trees on less than a day's notice earlier this month, and in hearings its lawyers said the clearing was unrelated to renovations and that no final plan existed, even as the president described the plans online. "Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting president," Reyes wrote. The order also requires at least ten business days' written notice before the government closes the park or makes any "irreversible modification." After Trump said the course would still close November 15 for a 15-month overhaul and that he would appeal, Reyes on Tuesday gave the government about 24 hours to explain whether that plan exists and how it squares with what its lawyers told the court. Why it matters: it's a pointed example of a court holding government lawyers to their own representations, and it keeps the public course open while the case goes forward.

Sources: NPR, Los Angeles Times (AP)

Legal tech: Latham builds a funds tool with Harvey, Stoel Rives picks Legora, Lexis expands Protégé

Latham & Watkins and Harvey announced on Tuesday a design partnership to build AI for fund formation work, covering limited partnership agreements, side letters, subscription documents, and comment memos. Bloomberg Law reported that Harvey plans to sell the resulting tool to other firms and that Latham won't share in that revenue. The same day, Legora said Stoel Rives, an Am Law 200 firm with about 350 lawyers in ten offices, chose it as its firm-wide AI platform after a pilot with more than 100 lawyers; the firm cited a formal security review and litigation uses like mapping case facts across large document sets and speeding up intake. LexisNexis also expanded Lexis+ with Protégé, pulling Lex Machina analytics, CourtLink dockets, Law360 reporting, and firms' own documents into one prompt box, and adding Shepard's Verify, which checks whether cited cases actually support the point they're cited for; it's rolling out to U.S. customers this month. Why it matters: big firms are now co-designing AI products rather than just buying them, and citation-checking tools are a direct response to the run of court sanctions over AI-invented case law.

Sources: Latham & Watkins, Bloomberg Law, Legora, LexisNexis

Not legal advice

This Briefing is a general news summary from Better Call Claude (bettercallclaude.org) and is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For help with your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.