AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENTYou have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.A group of immigration judges in 2020 challenged work-related restrictions on their public speaking engagements, saying they violated their free speech rights.Listen · 3:58 min The justices of the Supreme Court said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had overstepped in its ruling. There were no noted dissents. Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesMay 26, 2026, 12:49 p.m. ETThe Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to immigration judges challenging restrictions on their ability to speak out on public policy.With the ruling, the justices sided with the Trump administration and reversed a lower-court decision in the case that had allowed the challenge to proceed in federal court.A group of immigration judges filed suit in 2020 over a government policy limiting their work-related public statements, saying it violated their free speech rights. The National Association of Immigration Judges said such restrictions interfered with their ability to guest lecture at universities and to speak to community groups about matters of public importance, an issue that has taken on greater significance as Mr. Trump has put new pressure on the immigration system.The judges are part of an administrative court system and make decisions about asylum claims, deportations and other related matters. They are overseen by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a division of the Justice Department.The legal issue in the case centers on the proper venue for resolving such employee complaints. Typically, internal government bodies would weigh complaints first, including the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board. But Mr. Trump fired leaders of both of those offices last year.In June, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said that because it was not clear that those independent bodies are currently able to handle federal employee claims, a district court should reconsider whether immigration judges could instead make their case in federal courts that would otherwise be initially closed to them.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.AdvertisementSKIP ADVERTISEMENT