The nation’s highest court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday in a long-running legal battle that threatened to unravel a Justice Department policy governing when immigration judges can take the microphone at public events.
The ruling arrived as an unsigned order, in which the justices swept aside a federal appeals court decision and reinstated an earlier district court ruling that had originally ended the case.
At the center of the dispute is a policy from the Executive Office for Immigration Review — the Justice Department body that oversees the country’s roughly 750 immigration judges — that mandates pre-approval for certain public speaking engagements tied to a judge’s official role.
Under that policy, judges who wish to present at immigration conferences or participate in pro bono training must first obtain clearance from the agency before taking the podium.
The requirement, however, does not apply when a judge speaks as a private individual on matters unrelated to immigration. That distinction was central to how the case was argued before the courts.
The National Association of Immigration Judges launched the lawsuit back in 2020, filing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.
The group argued the policy infringes on First Amendment protections by 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 put the case to rest early, pointing to the Civil Service Reform Act — legislation born out of the post-Watergate reform era — which channels federal employee disputes through specialized bodies rather than district courts.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then stepped in and reversed course, ordering the case sent back to the lower court.
The appeals panel raised doubts about whether the federal employee complaint system was operating as Congress had envisioned, citing two problems: a stretch of time when the Merit Systems Protection Board lacked a quorum, and the Trump administration’s stated belief that the president holds the power to dismiss the Special Counsel and MSPB members at will.
The Trump administration brought the matter back before the Supreme Court, calling the case a “clear candidate for summary reversal.”
Government lawyers argued the appeals court had based its ruling on a legal theory that neither party had even put forward.
The Supreme Court agreed the 4th Circuit had overstepped.
“Federal courts are not ‘roving commissions,’” the unsigned order read, “licensed to ‘sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.’ The Court of Appeals lost sight of those principles here.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining him, filed separately to argue the appeals court also erred in its legal analysis.
“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.
Without any comment, the justices also declined a cross-petition from the judges’ association that asked the court to weigh in on whether federal workers can bring pre-enforcement free speech cases directly in district court.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche publicly celebrated the outcome, writing that the ruling “sends a clear message: lower courts must accept that the law is the law, no matter the ‘political controversies of the day.’”
The judges’ group pushed back, saying its case “is far from over,” adding in a statement that “justice cannot endure when judges are intimidated into silence, nor can a nation remain free when the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of political ambition.”
In the same order list, the court turned away Florida’s bid to open an original action against California and Washington, which Florida accused of handing commercial driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants in violation of federal safety standards.
California dismissed Florida’s claims as “patently meritless,” while Washington called the effort “a political stunt, not a real claim.”
Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from that rejection, with Thomas writing that “we cannot refuse to hear suits between States.”
The court announced no new cases for the 2026–27 term and will convene again for a conference Thursday, May 28.
