Court sides with Trump in dispute over immigration judges' speech restrictions
Ethics
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a lawsuit over speech restrictions for immigration judges that touched on the rights of federal workers.
The justices overturned a lower-court ruling that had allowed the case to proceed and raised questions about whether a complaint system for federal employees is still working as intended after the Republican president fired some of its top officials.
Immigration judges are federal employees, unlike those in federal courtrooms. They want to sue over a policy restricting their public speeches that started in Trump's first term in office and continued under President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. The judges argue it is a free speech issue that belongs in federal court.
The Trump administration disagreed, saying the judges must instead take their dispute to the complaint system for federal employees overseen by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The court ruled on procedural grounds, but Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote to rebuke the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for responding to "political controversies of the day."
Tuesday's decision comes as the court weighs another lawsuit about Trump's power to fire heads of independent agencies. The outcome is also expected to affect firing power over Merit Systems Protection Board members.
The judges first sued in 2020, and the Supreme Court previously temporarily sided with them on an emergency basis in December 2025. A union said in a statement that the judges were disappointed by the decision, but the case is "far from over."
"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," the National Association of Immigration Judges said.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche applauded the decision, saying it "sends a clear message: lower courts must accept that the law is the law, no matter the 'political controversies of the day,'" he wrote in a social-media post.
Related listings
-
A Canadian man facing 14 murder charges will plead guilty to aiding suicide
Ethics 04/19/2026A Canadian man facing murder charges for allegedly selling lethal substances online to people at risk of self-harm has agreed to plead guilty to 14 counts of counseling or aiding suicide, his lawyer said on Saturday.In turn, Canadian prosecutors will...
-
Appellate court sets hearing in South Carolina abortion case
Ethics 10/12/2021An appellate court is set to debate a lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s abortion law about a week after the U.S. Supreme Court considers a similar measure in Mississippi. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has tentatively calendared the S...
-
Court denies Seattle’s bid for wealthy household income tax
Ethics 04/04/2020Washington’s Supreme Court has denied Seattle’s bid to reinstate an income tax on wealthy households.In a majority decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday declined to review the city’s request to overturn rulings against the tax by ...
Victorville CA DUI Lawyers - Drunk Driving Defense Attorney
The outcome of a Victorville CA DUI defense will have a long-term effect on anyone’s life, making the decision to receive legal representation an easy one. The fact is, most people accused of a DUI are first offenders with no criminal background. Whether this is your first run in with the law or you have had previous convictions, you are in need of a DUI defense attorney.
If you fail a sobriety test or have a blood alcohol level above 0.8%, you are considered to be driving under the influence in which you will be arrested. During this time you will be read your Miranda rights and it is crucial to exercise your right to remain silent. As they say, “anything you say can and will be held against you in court.” The courtroom takes no mercy on drunk drivers and any statement you make during your arrest will only damage your case.