{"id":73,"date":"2026-05-26T18:12:28","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T18:12:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=73"},"modified":"2026-05-26T18:12:28","modified_gmt":"2026-05-26T18:12:28","slug":"court-sides-with-trump-administration-in-dispute-over-immigration-judges-declines-to-hear-florida-suit-against-other-states-over-immigrant-drivers-licenses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=73","title":{"rendered":"Court sides with Trump administration in dispute over immigration judges, declines to hear Florida suit against other states over immigrant driver\u2019s licenses"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning reversed a ruling by a federal appeals court that had revived a dispute over a policy governing speaking engagements by immigration judges. In from the justices\u2019 private conference last week, the court also declined to serve as the court of first review for Florida\u2019s contention that California and Washington are allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain commercial driver\u2019s licenses.<\/p>\n

Read more How Callais broke the Voting Rights Act and weaponized the equal protection clause: part 1<\/a><\/p>\n

The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for the 2026-27 term. They will meet again for another conference on Thursday, May 28.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The dispute over speaking engagements at the center of Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges<\/em> began several years ago, when the National Association of Immigration Judges went to federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, to challenge the policy, which requires immigration judges to obtain permission before making any \u201cofficial\u201d speeches \u2013 such as presentations at immigration conferences and pro bono training. Immigration judges are not required to obtain clearance for speeches that they make in their personal capacity, such as speaking before community groups on topics that are not directly related to immigration. The group contended that the policy violates the First Amendment by (among other things) prohibiting \u201cjudges from sharing their private views on immigration law or policy issues, or about the agency that employs them.\u201d<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema\u00a0\u00a0the government\u2019s motion to throw out the case. She pointed to the Civil Service Reform Act, a federal law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal that sets up a scheme to review federal employees\u2019 claims that they have been subject to prohibited conduct, such as discrimination or retaliation. When it passed the CSRA, she wrote, Congress intended to take away district courts\u2019 power to consider claims like the NAIJ\u2019s.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sent the case back to the district court. Although it\u00a0\u00a0with Brinkema\u2019s conclusion that, under the CSRA, district courts normally would not have the power to review claims like the NAIJ\u2019s, it questioned whether the two entities where the CSRA would normally channel the NAIJ\u2019s claim \u2013 the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board \u2013 are still working as Congress intended. Specifically, the court of appeals observed, when it issued its opinion in June 2025, the MSPB did not have enough members to take action, which would prevent it from acting on petitions for review. Moreover, the 4th Circuit wrote, although Congress intended the MSPB and the Office of Special Counsel to be independent, the Trump administration now argues that the president can remove both the Special Counsel and members of the MSPB for any reason.<\/p>\n

The court of appeals therefore instructed the district court to determine \u201cwhether the CSRA continues to provide a functional adjudicatory scheme.\u201d By a vote of 9-6, the full 4th Circuit on Nov. 20\u00a0\u00a0the government\u2019s request to reconsider the case.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court in December, asking the justices to temporarily pause the lower court\u2019s ruling while it appealed. In , the court declined to do so.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration soon returned to the Supreme Court, the case a \u201cclear candidate for summary reversal\u201d \u2013 that is, overturning the lower court\u2019s decision without additional briefing or oral argument \u2013 \u201ctwice over.\u201d The 4th Circuit, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued, wrongly relied on an argument that the NAIJ had not made (and, he said, had in fact affirmatively waived). Moreover, Sauer said, the Supreme Court \u201chas already held that the CSRA channels federal personnel claims to the MSPB.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Tuesday\u2019s five-page, unsigned , the justices granted the government\u2019s request to reverse the 4th Circuit\u2019s decision since that decision was based on an argument that the parties had not made. \u201cFederal courts are not \u2018roving commissions,\u2019\u201d the opinion explained, \u201clicensed to \u2018\u201csally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.\u201d\u2019 The Court of Appeals lost sight of those principles here.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more The Supreme Court\u2019s drug test<\/a><\/p>\n

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote a concurring opinion in which he explained that he believed \u201cthe Fourth Circuit\u2019s decision was also wrong on the merits.\u201d \u201cNeither the President\u2019s view that he can remove federal officials, nor his having done so, change the meaning of the statute or the binding nature of this Court\u2019s interpretation of it,\u201d Thomas argued.<\/p>\n

When the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, the NAIJ filed its own brief, known as a cross-petition. If the court were to grant the Trump administration\u2019s appeal, the group said, it should also weigh in on whether federal employees can file challenges to restraints on their speech directly in district court before the restraints are enforced against them. The justices denied that cross-petition on Tuesday without comment.<\/p>\n

Elsewhere in Tuesday\u2019s order list, the court turned down a request from Florida to file an original action \u2013 that is, a lawsuit effectively treating the Supreme Court as a trial court \u2013 against California and Washington. Such cases are rare and normally involve disputes between states over issues like water rights or boundaries.<\/p>\n

This case involves immigration. Florida that the two states have not complied with federal safety regulations governing commercial driver\u2019s licenses for (among other vehicles) 18-wheelers \u2013 and, in particular, have allowed undocumented immigrants \u201cwithout proper training or the ability to read road signs\u201d to obtain such licenses.<\/p>\n

California urged the justices to deny Florida\u2019s motion to file a complaint. It that Florida\u2019s claims are \u201cpatently meritless\u201d: \u201cCalifornia law requires DMV to verify legal presence and test for English proficiency, and DMV in fact does so.\u201d The case also does not meet the high bar required to bring a case directly in the Supreme Court, California argued: Florida cannot, for example, show that the dispute can only be resolved in the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Washington the lawsuit \u201ca political stunt, not a real claim,\u201d and it told the justices that Florida is guilty of the same conduct of which it now accuses California and Washington. Florida also does not have a legal right to sue, known as standing, Washington contended, because it had not shown either that Washington\u2019s actions had harmed it or that its lawsuit could redress the problems it targets.<\/p>\n

Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented from the decision not to allow Florida\u2019s lawsuit to go forward, writing \u201cwe cannot refuse to hear suits between States.\u201d But even if the court has discretion to decide whether to hear such states, Thomas continued, it still should have granted Florida\u2019s motion, because of the seriousness of the issue and because Florida has nowhere else to turn.<\/p>\n

The justices also denied several noteworthy petitions for review, including:<\/p>\n