Supreme Court Issues Huge Immigration Ruling
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to temporarily block a lower-court ruling that revived a legal challenge to a Trump administration policy restricting outside speaking engagements by immigration judges, allowing the case to move forward for now.
In a brief, unsigned order, the justices rejected the administration’s request to halt a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sent the lawsuit back to federal court for further review. The case was brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges, which is challenging internal rules that limit judges’ ability to speak publicly about immigration matters and the agency that employs them.
While refusing to intervene at this stage, the high court left the door open for future action, signaling that the government could return if the trial court proceeds with discovery before the Supreme Court decides whether to formally hear the case.
At issue is a Trump administration policy barring immigration judges “from speaking in their personal capacities about immigration and about the agency that employs them,” according to the judges’ association. The group argues the restriction violates the First Amendment and filed suit in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema initially dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the Civil Service Reform Act requires federal employees to pursue such claims through the government’s administrative review system rather than through district courts.
The 4th Circuit, however, reversed that decision and remanded the case for further examination, citing recent actions by President Donald J. Trump that it said “call into question” whether the administrative review process remains independent of presidential authority. The appeals court pointed to Trump’s dismissal of the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Special Counsel—officials central to the adjudication of federal employment disputes.
In its ruling, the appellate panel suggested Congress may not have intended for federal employees to be confined exclusively to administrative remedies if that system is no longer independent. The district court was instructed to gather additional information on “the continued vitality of the adjudicatory scheme.”
After the 4th Circuit declined to pause its decision, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court on Dec. 5 to step in. Sauer warned that the ruling improperly allowed courts to reinterpret federal statutes based on political developments.
“Unelected judges do not get to update the intent of unchanged statutes if the court believes recent political events… alter the operation of a statute the way Congress intended,” Sauer argued.
He also cautioned that the decision could create “destabilizing uncertainty,” potentially affecting a wide range of administrative review processes beyond federal employment disputes.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency matters from the 4th Circuit, temporarily paused the ruling while the full court considered the request. That pause ended Friday when the justices declined to grant relief.
In opposing the administration’s request, the judges’ association argued that “the inference that Congress intended to withdraw district-court jurisdiction over federal employment claims may no longer be appropriate” if the administrative system is no longer insulated from presidential influence. The group also maintained that allowing limited fact-finding would not harm the government.
The Supreme Court agreed the administration had not shown it would suffer “irreparable harm” absent a stay. The justices emphasized, however, that if the district court moves ahead before a full appeal is considered, the government is not barred from seeking relief again.
The decision comes as the Supreme Court has drawn heightened attention this month over a separate, high-stakes battle involving campaign finance limits—an issue with major implications for the political landscape ahead of the midterm elections.
During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas and several other conservative justices sharply questioned left-wing election lawyer Marc Elias about federal restrictions on certain political contributions. Elias argued Congress has broad authority to impose limits, while Republican plaintiffs contended that coordinated political spending constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.
Although Congress currently caps individual contributions to political candidates, the Supreme Court has long wrestled with balancing free speech protections against the government’s interest in preventing corruption—an issue now squarely back before the high court.