Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has temporarily blocked a federal appeals court decision that threatened to open new legal avenues for challenging personnel actions taken during the Trump administration.
The brief order pauses a case concerning speech restrictions placed on immigration judges, following warnings from the Justice Department (DOJ) that the ruling could disrupt federal employment law and create widespread legal uncertainty.
The stay came after Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency request Friday.
Sauer argued that the 4th Circuit had effectively created a loophole allowing plaintiffs to bypass standard procedures whenever they claimed federal personnel systems were malfunctioning.
“This court should stay the mandate with a view to summarily reversing the decision,” Sauer wrote.
The appellate court’s mandate was set to take effect Wednesday, which would have sent the matter back to the district court for further review, The Washington Times reports.
The dispute involves a policy requiring immigration judges to obtain approval before speaking publicly or giving speeches on immigration topics.
Implemented by the Executive Office for Immigration Review during the Trump administration, the policy aimed to prevent public statements that might appear prejudicial while cases were pending.
The DOJ maintains that such oversight is consistent with ethics rules applied to executive branch employees.
The National Association of Immigration Judges challenged the policy, claiming it violated First Amendment rights.
A district court initially dismissed the case, stating that such complaints must first go through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the body charged with handling federal personnel matters.
On appeal, however, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit revived the lawsuit, sending it back to the lower court for additional consideration.
The judges argued that the MSPB “does not appear to be working properly,” giving litigants the right to circumvent the standard review process.
In her opinion, Judge Nicole Berner acknowledged that the issue had not been raised previously but stated that the court could not ignore apparent problems in the civil service adjudication system.
“We cannot allow our black robes to insulate us from taking notice of items in the public record,” Berner wrote, instructing the district court to evaluate the functioning of the federal personnel system.
Sauer countered that the 4th Circuit overstepped by reviving arguments the plaintiffs had previously waived.
The DOJ warned that allowing the ruling to stand could encourage a flood of lawsuits challenging personnel restrictions in the 4th Circuit, potentially undermining the Civil Service Reform Act, which channels employment disputes to the MSPB.
According to Newsweek, the administration’s filing described the appellate decision as “so evidently contrary to this Court’s precedents that it calls for summary reversal.”
Officials told the Supreme Court that the ruling could “wreak havoc” on federal personnel procedures by granting plaintiffs an unprecedented path to contest employment actions made during the Trump administration.
Roberts’ stay prevents the ruling from taking effect and gives parties until Dec. 10 to respond.
Sauer emphasized that the case was subject to tight deadlines and that immediate intervention was necessary to preserve the government’s ability to seek appellate review.
The Supreme Court has issued several emergency stays in immigration-related cases this year, with its 6–3 conservative majority often skeptical of appellate rulings that expand judicial authority.
Sauer highlighted a recent instance in which the Court reversed the 4th Circuit for raising an unbriefed jurisdictional argument.
“The panel outdid itself” in the immigration judges case, he noted, by adopting a position previously waived by the plaintiffs.
Civil liberties attorneys, however, question the government’s request for extraordinary relief.
Ramya Krishnan, representing the National Association of Immigration Judges, argued that First Amendment issues remain unresolved.
“The Supreme Court should deny the extraordinary relief the government seeks,” she said, emphasizing that the public is deprived of judges’ perspectives while the policy remains in place.
