The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a win Tuesday, tossing a federal appeals court ruling that had reopened a fight over how immigration judges can give public speeches.
In an unsigned order, the justices reversed the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and restored a lower court decision that threw out a lawsuit brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges over a Justice Department policy requiring clearance for certain “official” speaking engagements.
The policy requires immigration judges to get approval before making “official” speeches, such as presentations at immigration conferences and pro bono training. Judges do not need clearance for speeches made in a personal capacity on topics not directly tied to immigration, according to the case record.
The judges’ group sued in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, arguing the policy violates the First Amendment by (among other things) prohibiting “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 dismissed the case, pointing to the Civil Service Reform Act, a post-Watergate law that routes many federal employee disputes through the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Brinkema wrote that Congress intended to pull claims like the judges’ association’s out of district courts.
The 4th Circuit revived the case and sent it back to the district court, questioning whether the CSRA review system is functioning as Congress intended. The appeals court cited two main concerns: a period when the MSPB lacked enough members to act, and the Trump administration’s position that the president can remove the Special Counsel and MSPB members for any reason.
The administration returned to the Supreme Court calling the case a “clear candidate for summary reversal,” arguing the 4th Circuit relied on a theory the parties had not raised. The high court agreed.
“Federal courts are not ‘roving commissions,’” the unsigned order 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, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to say 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 wrote.
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.
In the same order list, the court declined Florida’s request to file an original action against California and Washington over commercial driver’s licenses and immigration enforcement.
Florida argued the states are allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain commercial driver’s licenses in violation of federal safety rules. California told the court Florida’s claims were “patently meritless,” saying state law requires DMV to verify legal presence and test for English proficiency. Washington called the case “a political stunt, not a real claim,” and argued Florida lacked standing.
Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented from the decision to reject Florida’s request, writing “we cannot refuse to hear suits between States.”
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.
Download the FREE Trending Politics App to get the latest news FIRST >>
