Supreme Court Rejects Trump Administration’s Emergency Bid in Immigration Judge Power Struggle
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to grant an emergency stay sought by the Trump administration in a consequential dispute over the authority and accountability of immigration judges—another flashpoint in the broader fight to rein in an increasingly insulated federal bureaucracy.
At the heart of the case is a fundamental constitutional question: whether immigration judges, who operate under the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and report ultimately to the Attorney General, should be treated as executive branch employees or as quasi-independent political actors beyond presidential oversight.
The lawsuit was brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), which is challenging an EOIR policy barring immigration judges from publicly commenting on immigration policy or the agency itself—even in their personal capacity. The plaintiffs argue that the restriction violates their First Amendment rights.
EOIR administers the nation’s immigration court system and employs roughly 750 immigration judges across the country.
The Trump administration has maintained that such employment-related disputes must proceed through the framework established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), which directs federal employees to resolve workplace grievances through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Office of Special Counsel before seeking judicial review. Congress designed this system specifically to prevent end-runs around executive oversight and to preserve order within the federal workforce.
However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit questioned the system’s “continued vitality” after President Trump dismissed both the Special Counsel and an MSPB member, leaving the board without a quorum and temporarily unable to act.
The underlying lawsuit aims to further shield immigration judges from presidential supervision, effectively recasting them as untouchable bureaucrats operating outside the executive chain of command. By denying the emergency stay, the Supreme Court allowed that theory to proceed through the lower courts.
The Trump administration warned that allowing the Fourth Circuit’s ruling to remain in place—even on an interim basis—would cause irreparable damage to the president’s constitutional authority to oversee executive officers and to faithfully enforce the nation’s immigration laws.
Immigration judges are not Article III judges. They are employees of the Department of Justice. They do not hold lifetime appointments, nor were they intended to function independently of the executive branch. Yet under Biden-era policies and sustained activist litigation, they are increasingly treated as though they operate beyond any meaningful accountability.
“A federal appeals court had sent the challenge by a group representing the judges back to a federal trial court for more fact-finding on the independence of the administrative scheme set up to deal with claims by federal employees, and – in a brief unsigned order – the justices left that ruling in place,” SCOTUS Blog reported on Friday.
“However, the court also left open the possibility that the government could return to the Supreme Court to seek relief ‘if the District Court commences discovery proceedings’ before the justices rule on the government’s petition for review of the lower court’s decision,” the blog added.
Law professor Stephen Vladeck, a close observer of Supreme Court litigation, commented on social media that Friday’s decision marked the Trump administration’s “first real loss” at the high court since April.
The dispute traces back to the NAIJ’s claim that EOIR policies unlawfully prevent judges from discussing immigration matters and their employer outside official duties. The association filed suit in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, alleging violations of its members’ First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee, initially dismissed the case, holding that the CSRA requires the NAIJ to pursue its claims through the designated administrative process rather than federal court.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the justices on Dec. 5 that the Fourth Circuit had improperly substituted its judgment for Congress’s intent. Sauer warned that “‘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.’”
He further cautioned that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling had already introduced “destabilizing uncertainty” that could extend well beyond immigration courts to other administrative-review systems that bar district-court jurisdiction, including agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission.