The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration another significant legal victory Tuesday, reversing a federal appeals court ruling that had revived a lawsuit challenging restrictions on public speeches by immigration judges.
In an unsigned order, the justices tossed out a decision from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and restored a lower court ruling that dismissed the case brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges.
At the center of the dispute is a Justice Department policy requiring immigration judges to obtain approval before delivering certain “official” speeches, including presentations at immigration conferences and training events. Judges remain free to give speeches in a personal capacity on topics unrelated to immigration without prior approval.
The judges’ association argued the policy violated the First Amendment by effectively preventing judges from publicly discussing immigration law, policy, or criticism of the agency employing them.
But U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema previously dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) already provides a process for handling disputes involving federal employees. Congress created that system after Watergate specifically to route many employment-related complaints through administrative channels such as the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board rather than federal district courts.
The 4th Circuit later revived the case, raising concerns that the review system may not be functioning properly. The appeals court pointed to periods when the Merit Systems Protection Board lacked enough members to operate and also referenced the Trump administration’s position that the president may remove members of the board or the Special Counsel.
The Supreme Court sharply rejected that reasoning.
“Federal courts are not ‘roving commissions’ licensed to ‘sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right,’” the unsigned order stated. “The Court of Appeals lost sight of those principles here.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to argue the 4th Circuit was wrong even on the substance of the issue itself.
“Neither the President’s view that he can remove federal officials, nor his having done so, change the meaning of the statute,” Thomas wrote.
The court also rejected a separate request from the judges’ association asking the justices to clarify whether federal employees can bring free speech challenges directly into district court before enforcement actions occur.
In the same order list, the Supreme Court declined Florida’s attempt to sue California and Washington over commercial driver’s licenses issued to undocumented immigrants. Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas in dissent, arguing the court should hear lawsuits brought between states.
Leave a Comment