The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 19 allowed a lawsuit brought by immigration judges challenging a Biden-era policy that prevents them from speaking publicly about their jobs to move forward in the lower courts.

On Dec. 5, Chief Justice John Roberts had issued an administrative stay, which prevented a ruling against the federal government by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from taking effect as scheduled on Dec. 10. An administrative stay gives the justices more time to consider the application.

The applicant, Daren Margolin, is acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a sub-agency within the U.S. Department of Justice that conducts deportation proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicates appeals from those rulings.

The respondent, the National Association of Immigration Judges, sued the federal government over its 2021 speaking engagements policy that required immigration judges to obtain a supervisor’s permission to speak at public events. The association claimed that the policy constitutes a prior restraint on its members’ speech in violation of the First Amendment.

A federal district court had dismissed the immigration judges’ lawsuit, finding that the dispute should be adjudicated by a civil service agency that reviews claims made by federal workers. The Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, reviving the lawsuit.

The new ruling in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges rescinds the Dec. 5 stay, which had temporarily blocked the Fourth Circuit order. No justices dissented.

“At this stage, the Government has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay,” the Supreme Court said in an unsigned order.

In September 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had ruled against the association, holding that the federal Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) deprives the court of jurisdiction, or authority, over the lawsuit.

The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the dispute must first be adjudicated under the administrative scheme laid down by the federal statute before it can move to the courts. This means that the dispute should be heard by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) because it pertains to a challenge to a condition of federal employment.

The board describes itself on its website as “an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the Executive branch that serves as the guardian of Federal merit systems.” This means that the board tries to ensure that federal hiring is based on merit. The MSPB also reviews rules handed down by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees federal employees.

In June 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit unanimously overturned the district court’s ruling.

The panel sent the case back to the district court after finding that President Donald Trump’s firing of leaders at the MSPB and the Office of Special Counsel had “so undermined” the statute that federal workers could not seek meaningful review in disputes.

The panel directed the district court to develop “a factual record” assessing the “functionality” of the Civil Service Reform Act.

Congress passed the CSRA to deprive district courts of jurisdiction to review legal challenges such as those raised by the association, but the structure of the Act “relies fundamentally … on a strong and independent MSPB and Special Counsel,” according to the panel.

“Serious questions have recently arisen regarding the functioning of both the MSPB and the Special Counsel,” the panel stated.

“We cannot allow our black robes to insulate us from taking notice of items in the public record, including, relevant here, circumstances that may have undermined the functioning of the CSRA’s adjudicatory scheme.”

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had said in the government’s emergency application that the Fourth Circuit erred.

Sauer said the district court was correct to rule that the CSRA strips the court of jurisdiction and requires that the lawsuit be heard by the MSPB because the respondent is contesting a condition of federal employment.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Dec. 19, 2025, in The Epoch Times.