What happened
Immigration judges are not part of the regular federal courts. They are employees of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an office inside the Department of Justice. In October 2021, EOIR adopted a rule that requires immigration judges to get a supervisor's approval before giving public speeches related to their official duties. The Supreme Court's opinion describes the purpose as making sure that speech which might be seen as carrying the office's “imprimatur” stays consistent with its official positions.
The National Association of Immigration Judges challenged that rule in federal court in Virginia, arguing it violated its members' First and Fifth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the case: under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, most work-related complaints by federal employees go first to the Merit Systems Protection Board, not to a district court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals then sent the case back for more fact-finding, on a theory neither side had argued: that recent changes at the Merit Systems Protection Board might mean that review scheme was no longer working as Congress intended.
On May 26, 2026, in a short unsigned opinion in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges (No. 25-767), the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit. The reason was procedural: courts decide the questions the parties actually raise, a rule called “party presentation.” In the Court's words, the appeals court “decided ‘a case different from the one [respondent] advanced.’” The judgment was reversed and the case was sent back “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Barrett, wrote separately to say the Fourth Circuit was also wrong on the merits. The same day, the Court declined to hear the judges' own cross-petition (No. 25-1009). The formal judgment went to the Fourth Circuit on June 29, 2026.
Who this is about
This case is about immigration judges as federal employees and what they may say in public speeches about their work. It is a dispute between a judges' association and their employer, EOIR, about which forum hears their complaint.
The opinion does not decide whether the 2021 speech rule violates the First Amendment. It does not mention any immigration case, any hearing, or any rule about how judges decide cases. It does not say anything about people who appear in immigration court.
What it does not mean
- It does not change any pending immigration case, hearing date, or the way your case is decided. The judge assigned to a case is the same judge, with the same authority.
- It does not mean the Supreme Court approved or rejected the speech rule. The Court ruled only on how the lower court handled the case.
- It does not end the dispute. The case goes back to the Fourth Circuit, and the judges' association may still pursue its claims through the process the law provides.
- It does not change any form, deadline, or filing at USCIS or in immigration court.
What to do with this
If you have a case in immigration court, this decision is not a reason to do anything differently. Questions about your own hearing, your notice to appear, or your options belong with a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative at a recognized nonprofit. The organizations below are a place to start.
Advocasí is not a law firm. We explain what a policy says and help people prepare their own paperwork once a qualified advisor has told them which path applies.