A five-page unsigned order summarily reversed the 4th Circuit, saying it improperly revived immigration judges’ First Amendment challenge based on an argument the parties had not raised.
The dispute centers on a 2017 policy requiring immigration judges to get approval for “official” speeches, while the administration argued the Civil Service Reform Act channels such claims away from district court.
Clarence Thomas, joined by Amy Coney Barrett, said the appeals court was also wrong on the merits; the justices separately denied the judges’ cross-petition seeking broader review of federal employees’ speech claims.
The court also refused Florida’s bid to sue California and Washington directly over commercial driver’s licenses allegedly issued to undocumented immigrants, with Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.
No new cases were added to the 2026-27 docket, and the justices will revisit pending petitions — including Alan Dershowitz’s CNN defamation appeal — at a May 28 conference.
With civil service review boards in crisis, are federal worker protections becoming merely symbolic?
Can federal employees bypass official channels when the administration itself circumvents civil service law?
Does forcing speech claims through a broken system effectively deny First Amendment rights?