The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block a lower court ruling that revived a lawsuit filed by federal immigration judges challenging a gag policy, instead allowing the case to proceed to trial.
The justices rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to halt a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that sent the case back to district court. The National Association of Immigration Judges filed the lawsuit in Alexandria, Virginia, claiming a policy preventing them from discussing immigration policy in their personal capacity violates the First Amendment.
The Policy at Issue
A rule prohibits immigration judges “from speaking in their personal capacities about immigration and about the agency that employs them,” according to the judges’ association. The group argues the restriction is unconstitutional under free speech protections.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema initially dismissed the case, ruling the Civil Service Reform Act requires federal employees to pursue complaints through the government’s administrative review process. The 4th Circuit reversed that dismissal in a decision the administration sought to block.
Why the Appeals Court Acted
The appeals court cited recent actions by President Donald Trump, including dismissals of the Merit Systems Protection Board chair and the Special Counsel, as raising questions about the independence of the administrative review system. The panel suggested Congress may not have intended to restrict federal employees to administrative processes if that system is no longer independent from presidential influence.
The court directed the district court to gather additional information about “the continued vitality of the adjudicatory scheme” before proceeding. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had warned that allowing the case to move forward would create “destabilizing uncertainty” for other federal employment disputes.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court found the administration failed to demonstrate it would suffer “irreparable harm” from the lower court’s decision, the standard required to block a ruling. The justices made clear the government can seek relief again if the district court proceeds with fact-finding before the Supreme Court formally decides whether to take the case.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency matters for the 4th Circuit, had temporarily paused the appeals court decision while the full court considered the administration’s request. The Friday rejection of that request ended the pause.
What Comes Next
The case now returns to district court for additional proceedings to examine the administrative review system’s independence. The judges’ association argued that allowing limited fact-finding would not harm the government’s interests.
The ruling comes as the Supreme Court considers other significant cases this term, including a challenge to campaign finance restrictions involving First Amendment protections.
This story has been updated. CNN’s Supreme Court team contributed to this report.
