Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin With Unanimous Ruling

The Trump administration secured an important legal victory after a federal appeals court dismissed a First Amendment challenge to restrictions governing public appearances by immigration judges.

The ruling followed a Supreme Court decision in May that overturned the same appeals court’s earlier attempt to revive the lawsuit.

In its latest decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a Virginia federal judge’s dismissal of the case, concluding that the National Association of Immigration Judges must pursue its claims through the federal employee review system established by Congress.

The dispute centered on a Justice Department policy requiring immigration judges to obtain advance approval before participating in certain public speaking engagements connected to their official responsibilities.

The policy applies when a judge is invited because of his or her government position, expected to discuss agency policies or programs, or scheduled to address a subject directly related to official duties.

Immigration judges may still speak in a personal capacity, but the policy generally prohibits them from publicly discussing immigration matters closely connected to their government work without prior authorization.

The National Association of Immigration Judges filed its lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the approval requirement operated as an unconstitutional restriction on speech.

The organization maintained that immigration judges should be free to express personal opinions on immigration policy, court operations and the federal agency that employs them.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee serving in the Eastern District of Virginia, dismissed the lawsuit in 2023.

Brinkema concluded that the Civil Service Reform Act, or CSRA, created the exclusive process for handling federal employment disputes of this kind.

Under that system, employees generally must pursue their complaints through administrative channels involving the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board before obtaining review in a federal appeals court.

The immigration judges’ association argued that its constitutional claims fell outside the CSRA because the speaking policy was not a traditional personnel action.

Brinkema rejected that argument, finding that the lawsuit challenged work-related restrictions covered by the federal employment framework.

The Fourth Circuit initially revived the case in 2025.

Although the appeals court agreed that the association’s claims ordinarily fell within the CSRA, it questioned whether the administrative system was still functioning in the manner Congress intended.

The court raised concerns about a period when the Merit Systems Protection Board lacked a quorum and accumulated a substantial backlog.

It also pointed to the Trump administration’s position that the president may remove members of the MSPB and Office of Special Counsel without cause.

According to the appeals court, those developments raised questions about whether the agencies retained the independence Congress envisioned when it directed federal employees to use that administrative process.

The Fourth Circuit sent the case back to Brinkema for additional fact-finding on those questions.

The Trump administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the appeals court had built its decision around a theory the parties had not presented.

The administration called the case a “clear candidate for summary reversal.”

In May, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the Fourth Circuit had exceeded its proper role.

The justices concluded that the appeals court violated the principle of party presentation, under which courts generally decide disputes based on the arguments raised and developed by the litigants themselves.

“The Fourth Circuit’s departure from the principle of party presentation was an abuse of discretion,” the unsigned opinion stated.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the association had not argued that changes involving the MSPB or Office of Special Counsel rendered the CSRA’s review process constitutionally inadequate.

Instead, the association had consistently argued that its specific speech claims were not covered by the system at all.

The Fourth Circuit therefore should not have revived the lawsuit based on an entirely different legal theory of its own creation.

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate ruling and returned the case for additional proceedings.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to say that the Fourth Circuit was wrong not only procedurally but also on the underlying legal questions.

Thomas concluded that a temporary MSPB vacancy or presidential authority over executive officers did not permit federal employees to bypass the review system established by Congress.

After reconsidering the case under the Supreme Court’s instructions, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Brinkema’s dismissal on Aug. 19.

The latest decision means the immigration judges’ association cannot continue litigating its First Amendment challenge through a conventional lawsuit in federal district court.

The ruling does not establish that the Justice Department’s speaking policy is constitutional.

Instead, it determines where and how the judges must pursue their objections. The courts concluded that Congress directed claims involving covered federal employment actions into the CSRA process.

The policy itself was introduced during Trump’s first administration in 2017. It remained in place after a review by the Biden administration and continued under Trump’s second administration.

The case therefore became an important test of both federal employee speech rights and the ability of lower courts to introduce new theories that the parties themselves never argued.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the result.

“This unanimous result reflects a key principle we fight for: judges should be judges resolving the case before them, and should never try to seize Congress’s role,” Blanche said.

“This opinion sends a clear message: lower courts must accept that the law is the law, no matter the ‘political controversies of the day,’” he added.

The victory arrived amid several high-profile Supreme Court developments involving Trump.

On Aug. 17, the justices denied Trump’s request to reconsider their earlier refusal to hear his appeal of a $5 million civil verdict involving writer E. Jean Carroll.

A New York jury found Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. Trump has consistently denied her allegations and argued that the proceedings were unfair and politically motivated.

The Court initially declined to hear his appeal on June 29. Trump subsequently submitted a petition for rehearing, which the justices denied without explanation.

The denial does not represent a new ruling on the evidence or merits of Carroll’s allegations. It means the justices declined to review the lower-court judgment.

Carroll has already collected approximately $5.63 million, representing the verdict plus accumulated interest.

Trump is separately challenging an $83.3 million defamation award arising from statements he made during his first presidential term.

His attorneys argue that presidential immunity and the Westfall Act should protect him from liability for those statements. That separate appeal remains pending before the Supreme Court.

The immigration judges’ case, however, has now returned a clear result for the administration.

The Supreme Court rejected the Fourth Circuit’s effort to revive the lawsuit using an argument the litigants never presented, and the appeals court has now affirmed that the challenge cannot proceed in federal district court.