The Supreme Court handed down a major victory for the Trump administration after deciding to toss out a federal appeals court ruling that had reignited a battle over how immigration judges can give public speeches. The justices flipped the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision and restored a lower court ruling that tossed out a lawsuit that was brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges concerning a DOJ policy that required clearance for specific “official” speaking engagements.
The policy in question says that all immigration judges must get approval before making “official” speeches, which are defined as presentations at immigration conferences and pro bono training. Speeches that are made in a personal capacity on topics not directly related to immigration do not require prior approval, according to information contained in the case record.
The NAIJ filed its lawsuit in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, stating that the policy is in violation of the First Amendment by banning judges “from sharing their private views on immigration law or policy issues, or about the agency that employs them.” U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema threw out the case, citing the Civil Service Reform Act, a law that came about after the Watergate scandal that sends federal employee disputes through the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Brinkema then wrote that Congress planned to pull claims like those made by the judges’ association out of district courts, according to a report from Trending Politics News. The 4th Circuit looked into the case and decided to send it back to the district court, asking if the CSRA review system was functioning the way Congress intended.
The appeals court listed two major concerns: a period of time when the MSPB did not have enough members to act, and the Trump administration’s position that the president can remove Special Counsel and MSPB members for any reason he chooses. The administration then sought to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, referring to the case as a “clear candidate for summary reversal” stating that the 4th Circuit was relying on a theory the parties had not raised. And they agreed.
“Federal courts are not ‘roving commissions,’” the unsigned order from SCOTUS said, “licensed to ‘“sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.”’ The Court of Appeals lost sight of those principles here.” Justice Clarence Thomas who was joined by fellow Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately that the 4th Circuit was also wrong on the merits. “Neither the President’s view that he can remove federal officials, nor his having done so, change the meaning of the statute or the binding nature of this Court’s interpretation of it,” Thomas stated.
“The justices also rejected, without comment, a cross-petition from the judges’ association asking the court to address whether federal employees can bring pre-enforcement speech challenges directly in district court,” TPN said in its report, adding, “The Supreme Court did not add any new cases to its docket for the 2026-27 term, and will meet again for a conference Thursday, May 28.”
"*" indicates required fields