The U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2026, handed the Trump administration a significant procedural victory in a years-long dispute over restrictions on immigration judges' ability to speak publicly about immigration law and policy.
The justices, in an unsigned ruling, reversed a lower court's decision and returned the case to that court for further proceedings.
The case, Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges (No. 25-767), centers on
a policy that requires immigration judges to get prior approval before any "official" speech.
Such speaking engagements are those in which a judge "is invited to participate in an event because of their official position, is expected to discuss agency policies, programs or a subject matter that directly relates to their official duties or otherwise appear on behalf of the agency."
Background: A Policy Born Across Two Administrations
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the U.S. agency that employs some 750 immigration judges and oversees the nation's immigration courts, enacted the policy during Trump's first term.
The union alleged that the so-called "gag rule" was first issued in 2017, made more restrictive in 2020, and revised again in 2021.
Notably,
the policy restricting public speeches started in Trump's first term in office and continued under President Joe Biden's Democratic administration.
The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) said such restrictions interfered with their ability to guest lecture at universities and to speak to community groups about matters of public importance
— an issue that has grown in significance as the Trump administration has put new pressure on the immigration system.
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University brought the lawsuit on behalf of the NAIJ, arguing that the policy violates the judges' First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern and the public's First Amendment right to hear from them.
The Procedural Journey
A Virginia-based federal judge in 2023 dismissed the court challenge, saying a 1978 U.S. law called the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) dictated that the challenge should be brought before independent U.S. agencies that typically handle federal worker complaints, rather than in court.
Under that law, certain federal worker complaints are reviewed by the Office of Special Counsel, which decides whether to bring the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to adjudicate the claim.
But the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2025 said that Trump's firing of the heads of these agencies had raised serious questions about whether the immigration judges could get a fair hearing before the agencies.
It ordered the judge to conduct fact-finding on that question, prompting the Trump administration's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The judges first sued in 2020, and the Supreme Court previously temporarily sided with them on an emergency basis in December 2025.
However,
the Trump administration soon returned to the Supreme Court, calling the case a "clear candidate for summary reversal."
The Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Court found that the Fourth Circuit "vacated and remanded based on an issue the parties had not raised" and held that this "violated the principle of party presentation."
The per curiam opinion emphasized that
"the court did so without giving either side a chance to address its theory."
In pointed language, the justices declared that federal courts are not "roving commissions" licensed to "sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right," quoting from earlier precedent.
The ruling did not address the legal merits of the speech restraint.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurring opinion in which he explained that he believed "the Fourth Circuit's decision was also wrong on the merits."
Thomas wrote that "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." In a particularly pointed passage,
Thomas said "statutes change only when Congress changes them, not when judges decide that they no longer vindicate Congress's purposes."
The justices also denied the NAIJ's cross-petition without comment
— a separate appeal asking the Court to decide whether federal employees can file challenges to speech restraints directly in district court before the restraints are enforced against them.
Reactions from Both Sides
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.'"
The NAIJ struck a defiant tone.
NAIJ President Holly D'Andrea said that while her union was disappointed in the decision, "NAIJ will continue fighting to protect the free speech rights of immigration judges, to seek meaningful review of the Executive Office for Immigration Review's speech policies, and to ensure that immigration judges may engage in public discourse on immigration matters in their personal capacities."
Alex Abdo, an attorney for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University representing the judges association, said: "It's disappointing that the Court failed to take this opportunity to make clear that public servants can go directly to court to challenge broad restrictions on their speech."
He added that "now more than ever, we need the insights of the nation's immigration judges and other public employees to understand the work of our government."
Impact on the Immigration System and Those It Serves
This ruling arrives at a particularly consequential moment for the nation's immigration system.
Immigration judges are part of an administrative court system and make decisions about asylum claims, deportations, and other related matters.
Immigration judges occupy an unusual position within the federal civil service — although they perform adjudicative functions and decide matters of significant individual and public importance, they are Department of Justice employees rather than independent judicial officers.
The speech restrictions have a ripple effect beyond the judges themselves. When immigration judges are unable to speak freely at conferences, law school lectures, and community trainings, the public — including immigrants, visa holders, and their attorneys — loses a critical source of insight into how the immigration court system functions. For asylum seekers and respondents in removal proceedings, understanding the perspectives and expertise of the judges who decide their cases is vital to navigating an already opaque system.
The decision comes as the Trump administration has fired immigration judges across the country and put pressure on those remaining to deport more people.
In total, the Trump administration fired nearly 100 judges in 2025.
Meanwhile,
at the end of March 2026, the total backlog stood at 3,288,186 cases, with 2,318,797 immigrants having already filed formal asylum applications and waiting for asylum hearings or decisions.
For immigrants and their families, the combination of silenced judges, a reduced bench, and a record-setting backlog creates a perfect storm of uncertainty. Attorneys and advocates have long relied on immigration judges' public remarks at bar association events and legal trainings to better understand evolving court practices — knowledge that directly helps them prepare stronger cases for their clients.
What Comes Next
The unsigned per curiam order likely cuts off the immigration judges' effort to litigate speech restrictions in court, instead channeling them through an internal administrative process.
With
Trump having fired leaders of both the Office of Special Counsel and the MSPB
, serious questions remain about whether that administrative process can function as Congress intended.
The Supreme Court in a separate case is expected to resolve by the end of June the Trump administration's argument that removal protections for independent agency heads unconstitutionally constrain presidential power.
The outcome of that case could further shape the landscape for federal employee rights broadly — and for immigration judges specifically.
The Supreme Court has backed Trump in several immigration-related rulings issued on an emergency basis since his return to the presidency, including allowing him to deport migrants to countries other than their own and to revoke temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants.
The Court is also expected to rule by the end of June on the legality of Trump's directive to restrict birthright citizenship and the administration's bid to revoke temporary legal protections for more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians living in the United States.
For now, the speech restrictions remain firmly in place — and immigration judges who wish to challenge them must navigate the very administrative system whose independence is in doubt.
---
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about how developments in immigration law may affect your case, contact a qualified immigration attorney.