In brief
On Tuesday the Supreme Court dismissed federal immigration judges’ appeal of an executive order that limits their open‑speech. The ruling directs the judges to a neutrality‑based complaints system rather than a federal lawsuit, echoing a recent decision that gave the Trump administration full authority to replace top officials in independent agencies.\n\nThe judges, who serve as civil‑service employees and were once protected by a 4th‑Circuit injunction that allowed a federal case, argue that the rule violates free‑speech rights. The Court, however, holds that the policy is a standard internal‑agency regulation and proceeds on a procedural level.\n\nChief Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, co‑insists that lower courts must not divert the case into “political controversies of the day.” The decision does not resolve the underlying policy—will the gag rule survive a new Judiciary Department review or a congressional override? The judges’ union is disappointed but signals that the fight will continue.\n\nThe ruling comes at a time when the Court is about to weigh another Trump‑era dispute on the power to fire heads of independent agencies, a decision that could also touch on firing authority over the Merit Systems Protection Board officials.
[ "WASHINGTON— The Supreme Court decided on Tuesday to side with the Trump administration over a speech‑restriction policy that applies to federal immigration judges. The policy, originally introduced in President Donald Trump’s first term and maintained by President Joe Biden, prohibits judges from speaking publicly about their work. The judges allege that the rule violates their First Amendment rights and have argued that their disputes should be brought in federal court.Instead, the Court ruled on a procedural issue, mandating that the judges return their complaints to the Merit Systems Protection Board— the federal agency that oversees civil service complaints for federal employees. The decision effectively sets the judiciary’s jurisdiction aside in favour of a neutrality‑based internal‑agency system.Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, authored a brief admonishing the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals for “responding to political controversies of the day.” The Court’s ruling echoes a more recent holding that the Trump administration has unchallenged authority to fire heads of independent agencies.The immigration‑judge lawsuit dates back to 2020, and the Court had previously granted emergency relief in December 2025. The National Association of Immigration Judges – a union that represents thousands of migrant‑law‑court judges – expressed disappointment at the ruling and said the fight is “far from over.” The Association warned: “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.”Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche applauded the decision in a social‑media post, stating that the ruling “sends a clear message: lower courts must accept that the law is the law, no matter the ‘political controversies of the day.’”The Supreme Court is also tasked with weighing another Trump‑era litigant that tackles President Biden’s power to fire independent agency heads, a matter that may have consequences for the Merit Systems Protection Board’s own leadership. Those moving forward with the speech‑restriction case will now try to win it under the Board’s jurisdiction.Readers can follow the AP’s ongoing coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court." ]
