The Supreme Court delivered a rebuke to the Fourth Circuit on Tuesday, May 26, issuing a unanimous 9-0 decision ordering lower courts to stick to the cases and arguments that parties actually bring, rather than inventing new ones to fit the political climate of the day.
In a brief, unsigned opinion, the justices reversed the appeals court in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges.
The ruling emphasizes a basic rule of how American courts work: judges decide the disputes before them, not broader crusades of their own making.
The case began when the Executive Office for Immigration Review implemented a policy requiring immigration judges to obtain supervisor approval before giving public speeches on work-related topics.
The goal was to ensure that anything said with the weight of the office behind it aligns with official government positions.
The National Association of Immigration Judges filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Virginia, claiming the rule violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Also Read: Blow to Democrats as Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Revive Virginia Voter-Approved Congressional Map
The district court tossed the lawsuit and ruled that federal employees with workplace gripes like this must go through the special review system established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, rather than regular federal courts.
Both sides largely agreed on one key point during the appeal: the claims fell under the Civil Service Reform Act’s channeling rules.
Those rules route most federal employment disputes through the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel, with limited court review afterward. Precedent from the Supreme Court, including the 2012 Elgin decision, supports that.
Fourth Circuit Faulted for Raising New Issues Without Request From Either Side
But the Fourth Circuit took a different path after it agreed that the claims were covered by the law. Then, on its own, without prompting from either side, it raised a new issue.
The appeals court questioned whether the entire Civil Service Reform Act system was still “functioning as Congress intended” because of recent political changes, such as the president removing officials from the board, and questions about quorum requirements and independence.
The Fourth Circuit sent the case back down for more fact-finding on those points. That move, the Supreme Court said, crossed a line.
“Federal courts are not roving commissions licensed to sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right,” the Supreme Court opinion stated, quoting from past cases.
Courts rely on the adversarial system, where parties frame the issues. Judges are supposed to call balls and strikes, not step up to the plate themselves.
Justice Thomas Issues Separate Concurrence on Statutory Interpretation
The justices pointed to their own recent warning to the Fourth Circuit in another case where the appeals court had done something similar. They called this a “drastic” departure that amounted to an abuse of discretion.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurrence agreeing with the reversal but going further.
He argued the Fourth Circuit was wrong on the substance, too. Changing political winds or executive actions don’t rewrite a statute’s meaning, he said. Courts can’t ignore clear law just because circumstances feel different now.
“Conditions may have changed, but the statute has not,” Thomas wrote.
Ruling Comes Amid Ongoing Immigration Enforcement Tensions
The decision comes at a time when tensions run high over immigration enforcement and the role of federal workers.
The Trump administration has pushed hard to speed up deportations and reshape how immigration courts operate.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has publicly backed efforts to hold immigration judges accountable for pace and fidelity to the law.
Blanche welcomed the ruling and said it’s a win for judicial restraint. He noted that it tells appeals courts they can’t use lawsuits as vehicles to probe bigger political or structural complaints that nobody properly raised.
Also Read: Supreme Court Blocks the Block: Win for Women as Abortion Pill Mifepristone Stays in the Mailbox
The National Association of Immigration Judges and its backers, including First Amendment advocates, had hoped to challenge what they called a prior restraint on speech.
The Supreme Court didn’t reach the underlying constitutional questions, but kept the focus narrow on proper court procedure.
The case now returns to the lower courts to proceed in accordance with the Supreme Court’s instructions.
That likely means the original dismissal stands unless new arguments properly framed under the Civil Service Reform Act change things.
