The U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision on May 26, 2026, ruling against federal immigration judges in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges. The decision blocks federal workers from bypassing administrative tribunals to challenge workplace speech restrictions directly in federal district courts. This legal battle unfolded amid political disruptions inside the federal administrative state, where the removal of the Special Counsel and key members of the Merit Systems Protection Board had previously left lower courts questioning the functionality of standard civil service channels.
The high court reversed a 2025 ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that had carved out an exception for the judges. The Supreme Court found that the appeals court violated the principle of party presentation by ruling on an issue that neither side had formally raised during the litigation. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett wrote concurring opinions, stating that the Fourth Circuit was incorrect on the legal merits of the case as well.
The dispute began in October 2021 when the Executive Office for Immigration Review set up a policy requiring immigration judges to get supervisory approval before participating in public speaking engagements in their personal capacities. The National Association of Immigration Judges filed a lawsuit in 2022, asserting that the prior restraint rule violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights. According to a statement from the Knight First Amendment Institute, which represented the association, forcing public employees to use cumbersome administrative proceedings allows unconstitutional censorship to continue.
This decision reinforces the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and matches the 2012 Supreme Court precedent set in Elgin v. Department of Treasury. That precedent requires federal employee grievances to go through the Merit Systems Protection Board before reaching a federal court. Because of the new ruling, federal workers must remain in the administrative review pipeline even when bringing up serious constitutional challenges against their employing agencies.