Original Date Announced

The EOIR Director updated a Sept. 1, 2017 memo curtailing immigration judges' authority to speak publicly. The 2017 memo eliminated the speaking category of "personal capacity with use of title," thereby leaving immigration judges with only strictly official and strictly personal capacities. The 2017 memo also required all speaking engagements to be approved by a supervising Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) and prohibited any discussion of "immigration issues" in a personal capacity. Talking points and written materials for official public speaking were required to be submitted in advance and cleared.

Though couched as a process update to a prior directive, the new policy memo reinforces these prior restrictions and expands front-office oversight of public speaking. Under the new memo, requests to speak publicly must be accompanied by "complete talking points," as opposed to an outline, overview, or "abbreviated" talking points. All requests to speak publicly, including those in a personal capacity, must be cleared by the "Speaking Engagement Team," consisting of the Office of the Director, the Office of Policy, and the Office of General Counsel.

[ID #1140]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Immigration Judges v. DOJ - Complaint

A union of immigration judges, the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), filed a federal lawsuit in 2020 claiming Justice Department rules prohibiting them from speaking in their personal capacities about their work and other immigration issues are unconstitutional. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction on jurisdictional grounds; NAIJ appealed to the Fourth Circuit. See NAIJ v. McHenry, 20-cv-731 (E.D. Va.); 20-1868 (4th Cir.).

On June 8, 2022, the Fourth Circuit ruled that "[i]n light of the Revocation of Certification issued on April 15, 2022, by the Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, we grant the motion for rehearing, vacate the district court’s order of August 6, 2020, and remand for further proceedings as appropriate." The Fourth Circuit's prior unpublished decision had concluded that "[u]ntil the Regional Director complies with the FLRA’s order or the FLRA itself decertifies the Union, we conclude that the Union must proceed through the administrative process provided by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute."

**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

EOIR memo on NAIJ 'Muzzling' Suit

On October 7, 2022, the Director of the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) asked a Virginia federal judge to dismiss NAIJ's suit. In the memorandum he filed in support of his motion to dismiss, the Director argued that NAIJ failed to state a claim and lacked standing based on any injury-in-fact resulting from the 2021 policy.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.06.03 Opinion - NAIJ v. Owen

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in NAIJ v. McHenry, 1:20-cv-00731 (E.D. Va.), in which the district court had dismissed the National Association of Immigration Judges' (NAIJ) suit after concluding that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear NAIJ's challenge to the 2021 EOIR policy restricting immigration judges' public speech. The district court had found that NAIJ must instead pursue its challenge before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

The Fourth Circuit noted that the CSRA’s adjudicatory scheme was "predicated on the existence of a functioning and independent MSPB," which has "recently been called into question." The Fourth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to consider whether President Trump's removal of the MSPB Special Counsel and two Board members "undermined the functioning of the CSRA’s adjudicatory scheme" such that the court could take jurisdiction over NAIJ's claims.

On November 11, 2025, the Fourth Circuit denied the government's motion for rehearing en banc. NAIJ v. Owen, No. 23-2235 (4th Cir.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.12.19 Order - Margolin v. NAIJ

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court briefly stayed the Fourth Circuit's order in NAIJ v. Owen, 23-2235 (4th Cir.), which had vacated a district court decision dismissing NAIJ's petition for lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the court could in fact take jurisdiction. On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court reversed course, denying the government's request for a stay of the Fourth Circuit's order and finding that the government had not demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm without a stay at this stage of litigation. The Court permitted the government to reapply for a stay if the district court begins discovery proceedings before the Supreme Court reaches a decision on the government’s petition for certiorari in this case. Margolin v. NAIJ, No. 25A662 (U.S.).

Note: the name of this case has changed from NAIJ v. McHenry to NAIJ v. Owen to Margolin v. NAIJ as the defendant (the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review) has changed.

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**