The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fourth Circuit for deciding an immigration-judge speech case on unraised grounds, restoring dismissal of the union's First Amendment claims.
The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit on May 26, ruling unanimously that the appeals court exceeded its authority by deciding *Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges* on grounds neither party had briefed or argued [1]. The underlying dispute centers on an Executive Office for Immigration Review policy that requires immigration judges to obtain supervisory approval before making public speeches about their official duties [2]. The Court remanded the case, leaving in place the district court's earlier dismissal of the union's First and Fifth Amendment claims [3].
The National Association of Immigration Judges, the union representing the judges, had challenged the EOIR speech policy as an unconstitutional restriction on federal employees' expressive rights [2]. The district court dismissed those claims, and the Fourth Circuit reversed on grounds it developed independent of the parties' submissions [1]. The Supreme Court, in an opinion joined across the bench, held that appellate courts are bound by the party-presentation principle, which bars them from constructing and deciding arguments that litigants themselves declined to raise [3].
The significance of the ruling cuts in two directions. As a procedural matter, the decision reinforces a foundational constraint on federal courts: judges resolve the dispute before them, not the dispute they might prefer to address [1]. As a substantive matter, the effect is to restore the district court's dismissal of the First and Fifth Amendment challenges, meaning the EOIR's prior-approval requirement for immigration judge speeches stands for now [2]. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are among the justices associated with the Court's handling of the matter, though the opinion was unanimous [1].
For federal employee unions and civil-liberties litigants, the ruling signals that courts will not rescue imperfectly framed constitutional challenges by substituting judicial ingenuity for counsel's arguments [3]. The NAIJ can attempt to relitigate the First Amendment claims on remand, but it must do so within the bounds of arguments it actually advances before the district court [1]. Any renewed challenge to the EOIR policy will require the union to build a record and theory that can survive dismissal on the merits, not procedural rescue from an appellate bench [2].