>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The legal challenge was brought by the judges’ association in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. The group argued that the policy violated the First Amendment by limiting judges from expressing “their private views on immigration law or policy issues, or about the agency that employs them.”
The district court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema pointed to the Civil Service Reform Act, a post-Watergate framework that channels federal employment disputes through administrative bodies such as the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board. She concluded that Congress intended for disputes like this one to be handled outside of the federal district court system.
However, the 4th Circuit revived the case, sending it back for further review. The appellate court raised concerns about whether the Civil Service Reform Act system was functioning as intended, pointing to a period when the Merit Systems Protection Board lacked enough members to operate effectively. It also referenced arguments from the Trump administration that the president retains authority to remove the Special Counsel and board members without cause.
The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, urging the justices to intervene and calling the case a “clear candidate for summary reversal.” Government attorneys argued that the appellate court had relied on a legal theory that neither party had raised in the dispute. The high court agreed and stepped in to halt the lower court ruling.
In its brief order, the Court sharply rebuked the appellate court’s reasoning, stating: “Federal courts are not ‘roving commissions,’” the unsigned order said, “licensed to ‘“sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right.”’ The Court of Appeals lost sight of those principles here.”
The decision underscored a recurring theme in recent Supreme Court procedural rulings: limits on lower courts expanding jurisdiction beyond what Congress has explicitly authorized.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote separately to emphasize that the 4th Circuit also erred in its broader legal interpretation. “Neither the President’s 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’s interpretation of it,” Thomas wrote.
In the same order, the Court also rejected without comment a cross-petition from the judges’ association that sought to directly address whether federal employees can bring pre-enforcement First Amendment speech challenges in district court. That question remains unresolved at the high court level.
Separately, the justices declined Florida’s request to file an original action against California and Washington state over commercial driver’s licenses issued to undocumented immigrants. Florida argued that both states were violating federal safety regulations by issuing CDLs without proper verification of legal status.
California pushed back, calling Florida’s claims “patently meritless,” and arguing that state law already requires verification of legal presence and English proficiency testing. Washington similarly dismissed the lawsuit as “a political stunt, not a real claim,” and said Florida lacked standing to bring the dispute directly before the Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, dissented from the Court’s refusal to take up the case, stating: “we cannot refuse to hear suits between States.”
The Court did not add any new cases to its docket for the upcoming 2026–2027 term. Justices are scheduled to meet again for a conference on Thursday, May 28, as the docket for the new term continues to take shape.
