WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with immigration judges on Friday, rebuffing the Trump administration for now in a case with potential implications for federal workers, as the justices consider expanding presidential firing power. While the decision is a technical step in a long-running case, it highlights questions surrounding a series of high-profile federal workplace firings under President Donald Trump.
The justices let stand a lower court ruling that raised concerns about the Trump administration’s management of the federal workforce, but also signaled that lower courts should proceed with caution.
At the heart of the case is whether immigration judges, who are federal employees, can challenge a policy restricting their public speech through federal court, or if they are required to use a separate internal complaint system.
Trump’s administration had asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court found that Trump’s firing of top officials in the employee complaint system raised doubts about whether the system continues to function as designed. The Justice Department argued that such firings are within the president’s authority and that the lower court should not have questioned it.
Seeking immediate action, the solicitor general requested the Supreme Court “freeze” the lower court’s ruling while the administration pushed to have the immigration judges’ case removed from federal court. The justices declined, though they indicated the administration could return if the case moved too quickly in lower courts.
So far, the Supreme Court has allowed most of Trump’s firings to stand and is currently considering whether to formally expand presidential authority to fire independent agency officials, potentially overturning job protections that have been in place for nearly 90 years.
The underlying lawsuit began in 2020 when the union that used to represent immigration judges, who are employed by the Justice Department, challenged a policy limiting what judges can say in public. The union argues the case is a matter of free speech that belongs in federal court.
Ramya Krishnan, an attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, who argued the case for the union, welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision. “The restrictions on immigration judges’ free speech rights are unconstitutional, and it’s intolerable that this prior restraint is still in place,” Krishnan said.
In recent months, the Trump administration’s approach to immigration has included the firing of dozens of immigration judges viewed as too lenient by his supporters. The White House did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.
While the Supreme Court’s order is not a final decision, the case could eventually affect other federal workers who wish to challenge firings in court instead of using the internal complaint system, which is now largely overseen by Trump appointees.
The decision comes after a series of wins for the Justice Department on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. The court has sided with the Trump administration roughly two dozen times on issues ranging from immigration to federal funding.
Stay informed and connected — subscribe to The Philadelphia Tribune!
—
Dr. Chris T. Pernell, Director of the NAACP’s Center for Health Equity, explains how recent cutbacks to funding and research dedicated to Black maternal healthcare have led to an unwillingness to “solve an issue that unfortunately has not gotten better.”
https://www.phillytrib.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-immigration-judges-in-speech-case-for-now-rebuffing-trump-administration/article_64575fa9-b3f8-4853-918c-20e0e2bf32c3.html
