In June, a three-judge panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said a district court should reconsider whether immigration judges could make their case in federal courts that otherwise would be initially closed to them because it was not clear that those independent bodies can handle federal employee claims. The Supreme Court disagreed The justices’ unsigned order was procedural and allows the litigation to proceed in lower courts. The court did so without giving either side a chance to address its theory,” they wrote in a five-page opinion. Federal courts are not “roving commissions” licensed to “sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right,” the court said, quoting from earlier opinions. There were no noted dissents. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, would have gone further and ruled that the Fourth Circuit also erred on the fundamental legal issues.
Trump Administration Immigration Push
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche hailed the court’s decision and reversal of the Fourth Circuit. The decision comes as the Trump administration has fired immigration judges around the country and pressured those remaining to deport more people In 2023, a district court judge dismissed the association’s petition before Trump returned to office, saying the immigration judges were legally compelled to direct their complaints through an administrative agency process. But the appeals court revived the matter, noting that political realities cast doubt on whether the administrative process was “functioning as Congress intended. ” The justices took the matter without hearing oral arguments.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was disheartening, said Alex Abdo, litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which represents the immigration judges. Public servants shouldn’t have to wade through cumbersome and
