**WASHINGTON** — The Supreme Court declined to block a lower-court ruling that revived a First Amendment lawsuit by immigration judges, sending the dispute back to a federal trial court for further proceedings.
The justices refused the Trump administration’s request to halt a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision reinstated a case filed by the National Association of Immigration Judges challenging a policy that bars the judges from speaking in their personal capacities about immigration or the agency that employs them. The association filed the suit in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, arguing the restriction violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema initially dismissed the case. She held that the Civil Service Reform Act required the judges to pursue their claims through the federal government’s administrative review process rather than in district court.
The 4th Circuit reversed that dismissal and remanded the case. The appeals court pointed to recent actions by President Donald Trump, including the dismissal of the chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Special Counsel — officials central to reviewing federal employment disputes. The panel said Congress may not have intended the administrative process to be the exclusive path if that system is no longer independent of presidential control. It directed the district court to develop a fuller record on “the continued vitality of the adjudicatory scheme.”
After the 4th Circuit refused to pause its ruling, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court on Dec. 5 to intervene. Sauer argued that “unelected judges do not get to update the intent of unchanged statutes” based on recent political events. He warned the decision could create “destabilizing uncertainty” for other administrative review systems, not only federal employment cases.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency matters from the 4th Circuit, briefly froze the decision while the full court considered the request. The justices’ refusal to step in ended that pause.
The judges’ association argued that if administrative review is no longer independent of the president, Congress may not have withdrawn district-court jurisdiction over such claims. The group said limited fact-finding would not seriously harm the government.
The Supreme Court concluded the administration had not shown the irreparable harm needed for a stay. The justices also made clear that the government may return to the high court if the trial judge proceeds with discovery before the justices decide whether to take the case on a formal appeal.
