The primary significance of a Supreme Court decision issued on May 26, 2026 (Daren K. Margolin, Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review v. National Association of Immigration Judges (No. 25-767)) is narrow and procedural, but it has significance for other cases that are already in court or cases likely to be brought into court. In particular, the case may influence other lawsuits and limits on federal employees or unions appealing an issue.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that the appeals court violated the long-standing “party presentation” principle by sua sponte (on its own) raising and relying on an issue that neither party had briefed or argued.

Specifically, the Fourth Circuit had agreed with the district court (and the government) that the National Association of Immigration Judges’ (NAIJ) First Amendment challenge to an Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) policy on immigration judges’ public speech was covered by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) and therefore had to be channeled through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Office of Special Counsel rather than federal district court.

However, the Fourth Circuit then remanded for fact-finding on whether the CSRA’s administrative scheme was still “functioning as Congress intended” in light of recent executive-branch actions (removals of the Special Counsel and MSPB members, quorum issues, and questions about independence). The Supreme Court held this was an abuse of discretion: courts are “essentially passive instruments of government” and must decide only the questions framed by the parties (citing United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020), and a recent similar reversal of the Fourth Circuit in Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7 (2025)).

Justice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Barrett) elaborated on this issue in his concurring opinion. He summarized the issue in this way (footnotes deleted):

[T]he Fourth Circuit strained to avoid dismissal of the case based on its belief that new political considerations changed the governing law. The court explained that it would not allow its “black robes to insulate [it] from taking notice of items in the public record.” Specifically, the Fourth Circuit worried that because “the President removed the Special Counsel” and “two members of the MSPB,” there were now “serious questions as to whether the CSRA’s adjudicatory scheme continues to function as intended.” Congress designed the CSRA to rely on MSPB independence, the Fourth Circuit claimed, so now that “the Government has questioned the constitutionality of the removal protections enshrined in
the CSRA,” it was no longer clear that the statutory scheme was functioning as Congress intended. If it were not, the court reasoned, Congress might not have intended for such claims to be channeled to the MSPB any longer.

Instead, there are restrictions on the authority of a court. He wrote (footnotes deleted):

Courts may not “rewrite the statutory scheme in order to approximate what we think Congress might have wanted had it known that ”the President or courts may conclude that its removal restrictions were “beyond its authority.” Statutes change only when Congress changes them, not when judges decide that they no longer vindicate Congress’s purposes.

What This Means for Federal Employees and Unions

The core message of the ruling is:

Federal employees generally must use the CSRA system first, even when raising constitutional objections.

That decision is important as it will have an impact on the federal workforce as a whole.

The Civil Service Reform Act already channels many disputes contained within the structure of the CSRA itself. These appeal mechanisms include:

  • Agency grievance systems,
  • Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) proceedings,
  • Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) review of issues within its purview
  • Limited appellate review.

Lower courts have occasionally been willing to allow direct constitutional lawsuits in federal district court. This decision suggests the Supreme Court is skeptical of bypassing the statutory framework Congress created for federal employment disputes.

For federal employees and unions, that is a significant development for several reasons. Specifically,

  • Administrative remedies can be slower,
  • Discovery rights and options can be narrower,
  • Access to independent federal judges becomes much more limited.

The decision was unanimous on the reversal. It does not reach the constitutionality of the 2021 EOIR speech-approval policy itself, nor does it broadly declare the CSRA constitutional or address immigration judges’ independence as adjudicators.

There is some irony in this scenario. The CSRA was passed after extensive efforts by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to secure passage of this statute.

In the 1960s, federal unions were not thought of as participants in national politics. If they had been seen as political foes, it is unlikely that Republican President Richard Nixon would have expanded the role of unions with Executive Order 11491 in 1969. His order gave unions more power to bargain and to contest agency decisions.

In the 1970s, AFGE representatives (and President Carter) were telling anyone who would listen that the labor relations program needed a legislative base to survive and thrive. Federal unions worked hard to expand their role and were successful as AFGE’s National President Ken Blaylock traveled around the country and sat with President Jimmy Carter at town meetings in support of what became the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

They were successful. The federal labor relations program was addressed in statute instead of an executive order. The CSRA, including its restrictions on using other avenues of appeal outside the CSRA, became a law. That issue may be addressed more substantially in a later case. But, as often happens, there can be unforeseen downsides to a law as well.

Since then, federal employee unions have become increasingly aligned with Democratic party politics and candidates rather than apolitical organizations seeking the best deal they could get for employees.

Impact on Challenges to Administration Effort to Exert More Control Over Federal Workforce

This Supreme Court ruling reinforces the CSRA appeals mechanisms and will make it harder to bring direct constitutional or statutory challenges to workplace policies (e.g., speech restrictions, discipline, reclassifications, or removal procedures) in district court.

The Supreme Court decision closes a technique opened by the Fourth Circuit. An argument that the CSRA appeal mechanisms are no longer “meaningful” because the Trump administration’s removal of MSPB members, the Special Counsel, or other officials (and related quorum/independence issues) do not make the CSRA mechanisms less relevant or that the administrative process is dysfunctional. The Supreme Court also signaled a strong skepticism toward such arguments, particularly when they have not been properly raised and litigated by the parties early in the process.

Many union-filed or employee lawsuits seeking to block Trump-era policies (such as expanded Schedule F-style at-will reclassifications, limits on union activity, or agency-specific rules) rely on bypassing the MSPB in favor of immediate judicial review. This decision will likely lead to dismissals or stays in cases where the government can invoke CSRA preclusion, forcing litigants back into the administrative process (where outcomes may be slower and more deferential to the executive).

It does not eliminate all avenues for an appeal. Employees can still pursue MSPB appeals and limited judicial review in the Federal Circuit but it prevents the kind of broad district-court injunctions some unions have been seeking to create.

The decision bolsters the administration’s position that Article II removal authority and statutory CSRA processes are still intact despite political changes at the MSPB or Special Counsel. It does not resolve underlying debates over civil service independence versus presidential control, but it removes one judicial tool (the court will not raise new arguments sua sponte). Some lower courts were using this technique to scrutinize executive actions. Congress remains free to amend the CSRA if it wishes to expand or alter judicial review.

Bottom Line

This ruling is a procedural win for the government. It limits forum-shopping by aggrieved parties and preserves the CSRA’s exclusive administrative scheme. It does not decide larger constitutional questions about federal-employee protections but will make it easier for the Trump administration to implement and defend workforce policies without immediate parallel litigation in district courts.

The underlying NAIJ speech-policy dispute returns to the lower courts for proceedings consistent with this opinion (and a likely dismissal of the case).