Immigration Judges Fight for Free Speech in Court

A lawsuit against a restrictive Trump-era policy could redefine how federal employees challenge political interference in their work.

WASHINGTON — The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cracked open a long-stalled case brought by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), challenging the federal government’s so-called “gag rule”—a Trump-era policy muzzling immigration judges from speaking publicly in a personal capacity.

The case, NAIJ v. Owen, has become a Trojan horse for a broader existential question: Is the federal civil service still functioning under the law Congress wrote? And the judges’ answer is sobering: maybe not.

---

MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY

immigration.net

---

A Muzzle by Design

At the heart of the case lies a simple but sweeping directive from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): immigration judges, though technically federal employees, cannot speak publicly, teach, publish, or attend panels without explicit agency approval. That approval, plaintiffs say, rarely comes—or arrives only after the content has been sanitized beyond recognition.