'WE DISAGREE' — Supreme Court Drops Blockbuster 9-0 Ruling
Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin With Unanimous Ruling
The Supreme Court of the United States handed the Trump administration a legal victory this week by throwing out a federal appeals court ruling that had revived a dispute over public speaking restrictions for immigration judges.
In an unsigned order, the justices reversed a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
They reinstated a lower-court ruling dismissing a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Immigration Judges.
The case centered on a Justice Department policy requiring immigration judges to obtain approval before participating in certain public speaking engagements deemed “official” in nature.
The policy requires immigration judges to obtain approval before participating in “official” speaking engagements, including presentations at immigration conferences or pro bono legal training events.
According to court records, judges are still permitted to give speeches in a personal capacity so long as the topics are not directly connected to immigration matters.
The National Association of Immigration Judges challenged the policy in federal court in Alexandria, arguing it violated the First Amendment by restricting judges from expressing private opinions about immigration policy or the agency employing them.
But U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton appointee serving the Eastern District of Virginia, dismissed the lawsuit, pointing to the Civil Service Reform Act.
Brinkema concluded that Congress intended claims like those brought by the judges’ association to be handled through that specialized review system instead of traditional lawsuits in federal court.
The 4th Circuit later revived the lawsuit and sent it back to the district court, raising concerns about whether the review framework created under the Civil Service Reform Act is actually operating the way Congress intended.
The appeals court pointed to two major issues.
First, the Merit Systems Protection Board at one point lacked enough members to function, creating a backlog that critics argued undermined the effectiveness of the system.
Second, the court noted the Trump administration’s constitutional position that the president has the authority to remove members of the MSPB and the Office of Special Counsel at will, a stance that raised broader questions about the independence of the federal employee oversight process.
The administration returned to the Supreme Court, calling the case a “clear candidate for summary reversal,” arguing the 4th Circuit relied on a theory the parties had not raised.
The high court agreed.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote that the 4th Circuit was also wrong regarding the legal issues involved.
This is the second big ruling this week involving Trump.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court refused once more to hear Trump’s bid to overturn a New York jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll.
Advertisement
The justices did not explain their decision to decline to take the case, a standard practice when the high court turns away petitions.
This marks the second time this year the Court has rejected Trump’s effort to erase the civil verdict.
Carroll has delayed collecting the judgment for an extended period while the president pressed his appeals.
Trump’s legal team continues to contest a separate $83.3 million defamation award Carroll won against him in a related case. In that matter, his lawyers argue he is entitled to presidential immunity.
The $5 million verdict stemmed from a jury’s determination in the battery and defamation proceedings that Trump had sexually abused Carroll.
The larger award followed a subsequent defamation trial. Both cases have unfolded against a backdrop of intense political scrutiny and repeated legal challenges from the Trump side.
Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s accusations and maintained that the civil proceedings were politically motivated.
His attorneys have pursued every available avenue to contest the outcomes, including the immunity claim now central to the remaining $83.3 million judgment.
The Supreme Court’s latest refusal leaves the $5 million finding intact for now, clearing a path for Carroll to seek payment after prolonged litigation.
As the president’s lawyers press forward on the remaining judgment, the $5 million verdict stands as a finality the Court has twice declined to disturb.
Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Trump’s appeal of a $5 million civil verdict finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the long-running case brought by Carroll.
The denial leaves intact a jury’s 2023 decision from New York federal court, even as the sitting president contends the proceedings represent a politically motivated distraction from his duties leading the nation.
A separate defamation trial produced an $83.3 million award, which remains under appeal and subject to further challenges, including arguments over presidential immunity and the Westfall Act.
Trump Says He Would ‘Absolutely’ Ban Sharia Law
President Donald Trump made headlines this week with massive remarks about Sharia Law.
The president delivered an emphatic message Wednesday on the place of Sharia law in America, saying he would “absolutely” support prohibiting attempts to establish the Islamic legal system in the United States and insisting that the country must remain governed by a single constitutional framework.
Trump made the remarks during a live interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck, who pressed the president about ideological threats he believes are gaining ground inside the United States.
The exchange came as Sharia law has emerged as a flashpoint in national politics, including in the closely watched Michigan Senate race, where Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed has faced Republican criticism over previous remarks concerning Islamic law.
Beck raised what he described as a “Red-Green Alliance,” referring to an alleged convergence between far-left political movements and Islamist ideology.
He specifically cited the Democratic Socialists of America and Islam before asking Trump whether he would support federal action against Sharia law.
Trump left little doubt about where he stands.
“On Sharia law, I would absolutely say that’s not this country. There’s no Sharia law. And you do have pockets of it, as you know,” Trump replied.
The president then pointed overseas, arguing that developments in major European cities should serve as a warning for Americans.
“I would say no, and you go to London, you go to Paris. It’s almost like a second way of life. It is ridiculous,” Trump said.
“And I would absolutely be on your side on that, on a lot of other people’s side too, because, you know, you and I have people that, I think, we’re more based upon common sense than we are on ideology,” Trump added.
WATCH:
Trump went on to make his position even clearer, telling Beck that he would support stopping any effort to establish Sharia as a competing legal authority inside the United States.
“Good politics is all about common sense anyway but i would absolutely prohibit the Sharia law thing and it is happening in this country a little bit and when we see it we take it out and you have to take it out,” he continued.
“You have one system, we have a great system, sometimes it’s very frustrating but it’s the best there is, that I can say,” the president concluded.
Trump’s remarks arrive amid a growing conservative debate over Islamic law and whether additional legislation is needed to ensure foreign or religious legal systems cannot supersede American constitutional protections.
Under the Constitution, federal law and constitutional protections already take precedence over religious codes.
Muslims, like Americans of other faiths, remain free to observe religious practices privately so long as those practices comply with U.S. law.
Any federal proposal specifically targeting religious practice would also face significant First Amendment questions.
But conservatives pushing anti-Sharia measures have argued their objective is not restricting private religious belief.
Instead, they say they want explicit safeguards to ensure that no religious or foreign legal code imposes itself when it conflicts with constitutional rights.
The issue has gained additional political attention because of El-Sayed’s campaign in Michigan.
Vice President JD Vance recently hammered the Democratic Senate nominee over remarks El-Sayed delivered during a 2022 Council on American-Islamic Relations banquet in Oklahoma.
“The same exact forces that drove native peoples from their land two centuries ago, destroyed Black Wall Street a century ago, bombed a building decades ago and tried to ban Sharia law not a decade ago, those forces are alive and well today,” El-Sayed said at the time.
“The reason I wanted to go all the way back to the 1830s is because you can’t understand a Sharia ban without understanding the Trail of Tears,” El-Sayed continued.
“You can’t understand the efforts to uproot Muslim Americans without understanding the Tulsa massacre. You cannot understand the challenges we face today without understanding White supremacy,” El-Sayed added.
