President Trump’s seemingly unstoppable run at the Supreme Court just hit a brick wall.
On Friday, December 19, 2025, the justices declined to step in on a contentious case involving speech curbs on immigration judges, snapping a winning streak for the administration on the court’s emergency docket that had held strong since spring. This rare loss has conservatives scratching their heads, wondering if the court is finally pushing back.
For those just tuning in, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s urgent request to halt a lower court’s ruling that allows a lawsuit over speech restrictions on immigration judges to move forward before a federal district judge.
Now, let’s talk about who’s feeling the pinch—hardworking federal employees like immigration judges, who are caught in a bureaucratic vise with these speech rules requiring prior approval for public remarks tied to their duties. If these restrictions stand unchallenged, they face real legal exposure, potentially muzzled from speaking out on critical issues while risking career repercussions for non-compliance.
The case, brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), argues that these prior-approval mandates violate the First Amendment. While the core free speech question wasn’t directly before the Supreme Court yet, the administration wanted to stop the lawsuit in its tracks, pushing for the matter to be handled by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) instead.
The lower court, however, wasn’t buying it, allowing the case to proceed while raising “serious questions” about the MSPB’s functionality after President Trump’s personnel moves left it without a quorum for a time. From a populist perspective, this smells like another case of federal bureaucracy failing to serve the people it’s meant to protect.
The Supreme Court’s brief order didn’t pull punches, stating, “At this stage, the Government has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay.” Well, that’s a polite way of saying, “Try harder next time,” but it leaves conservatives wondering if the court is ignoring the bigger picture of executive authority being undermined by activist judges.
This rejection marks the first time since spring 2025 that the Supreme Court has turned down one of the administration’s emergency appeals. Notably, no justice publicly dissented, which might suggest a unified front—or just a quiet agreement to let this play out lower down the ladder.
Still, the door isn’t slammed shut; the government can circle back as the case progresses. For now, though, this is a rare dent in the Trump team’s near-perfect record on the emergency docket, where they’ve filed 32 applications since retaking the White House.
Most of those cases have either been decided in the administration’s favor or are still pending, with a few withdrawn. The administration insists this flood of emergency filings stems from federal district judges overreaching to block Trump’s agenda—a claim that resonates with conservatives tired of judicial roadblocks.
On the flip side, critics argue these frequent emergency requests show the president flouting legal norms. From a right-of-center view, though, it’s hard to ignore how often progressive-leaning courts seem to delight in stalling policies voters supported.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer didn’t hold back, warning in filings, “The lower ruling would indefinitely thwart the MSPB.” That’s a fair point—if the MSPB can’t function as intended, what’s the point of having it? Conservatives see this as another example of the system being gamed to slow down Trump’s reforms.
Meanwhile, Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute representing NAIJ, cheered the decision, saying, “The Supreme Court was right to reject the government’s request for a stay of proceedings.”
Ms. Krishnan didn’t stop there, adding, “The restrictions on immigration judges’ free speech rights are unconstitutional, and it’s intolerable that this prior restraint is still in place.” While her passion for free speech is noted, conservatives might argue that executive branch employees knew the rules when they signed up—balancing rights with responsibility isn’t woke, it’s rational.
This case isn’t just about immigration judges; it carries weight for other federal workers entangled in similar disputes. If the MSPB remains sidelined, as the lower court suggested, countless cases could grind to a halt, leaving employees and taxpayers in limbo.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision is a hiccup for the Trump administration, but not a knockout blow. Conservatives can take heart that the fight isn’t over, and with the court’s track record, there’s still a strong chance for a comeback. Let’s keep a sharp eye on how this unfolds—accountability, not agenda, must win the day.
