WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court today granted the government’s request to reverse an appeals court decision that had allowed a legal challenge to the Department of Justice policy silencing immigration judges to proceed in federal court. It also denied the cross-petition for certiorari filed by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), which had argued that federal employees should be permitted to challenge broad prior restraints on their speech in federal court without first having to go through cumbersome and potentially futile administrative proceedings. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University represents NAIJ.

“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,” said Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute. “Forcing public employees to wade through cumbersome and potentially futile administrative proceedings before challenging prior restraints allows unconstitutional censorship to persist. 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.”

In 2020, the Knight Institute filed this lawsuit on behalf of NAIJ, challenging an Executive Office for Immigration Review policy that prohibits immigration judges from speaking publicly in their personal capacities about immigration or the agency that employs them. A district court dismissed the case in 2023, holding that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 requires such claims to proceed through administrative review.

In June 2025, the Fourth Circuit revived the case, expressing concern that recent actions by the Trump administration may have undermined the agencies charged with hearing federal employment claims—the Office of Special Counsel and Merit Systems Protection Board—and that they may no longer be operating as Congress intended. But the court also held that, if that system is functioning as Congress intended, immigration judges would be required to challenge the policy through that administrative process rather than in federal court.

In February, the Knight Institute filed a cross-petition for certiorari asking the Court to consider that question. The cross-petition was filed after the government petitioned the Court in December 2025, asking it to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s ruling. 

“We’re disappointed by today’s decision and by the Court’s failure to address the significant free speech concerns at the heart of this case. However, this litigation is far from over,” said Holly A. D’Andrea, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. “The case has been remanded to the Fourth Circuit, and 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. 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.”

NAIJ is a nonpartisan, nonprofit voluntary association of federal immigration judges. Its members have long participated in public conversations and events about immigration law, including through teaching, training, and community engagement.

Read today’s decision here.

Read more about the lawsuit, Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, here.

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Alex Abdo, Xiangnong (George) Wang, and Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Victor M. Glasberg of Victor M. Glasberg & Associates.