Supreme Court sides with Trump in immigration judges' speech restrictions dispute

34||h=1&&(this.target=t[0]),t.length>=2&&(this.opts=t[1]);var n,r=this.opts||{},i=this.target;if("string"==typeof i?n=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof y?n=i.url:window.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(n=i.href),o(this,n),"data"!==this.params.protocol){var s=(""+(i&&i instanceof y&&i.method||r.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=s,this.txSize=m(r.body)||0}}),u.on("fetch-done",function(t,e){if(this.endTime=a.now(),this.params||(this.params={}),"data"===this.params.protocol)return void g("Ajax/DataUrl/Excluded");this.params.status=e?e.status:0;var n;"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var r={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:a.now()-this.startTime};s("xhr",[this.params,r,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this)})}},{}],18:[function(t,e,n){var r={};e.exports=function(t){if(t in r)return r[t];if(0===(t||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};var e=document.createElement("a"),n=window.location,o={};e.href=t,o.port=e.port;var i=e.href.split("://");!o.port&&i[1]&&(o.port=i[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===i[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=e.hostname||n.hostname,o.pathname=e.pathname,o.protocol=i[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var a=!e.protocol||":"===e.protocol||e.protocol===n.protocol,s=e.hostname===document.domain&&e.port===n.port;return o.sameOrigin=a&&(!e.hostname||s),"/"===o.pathname&&(r[t]=o),o}},{}],19:[function(t,e,n){function r(t,e){var n=t.responseType;return"json"===n&&null!==e?e:"arraybuffer"===n||"blob"===n||"json"===n?o(t.response):"text"===n||""===n||void 0===n?o(t.responseText):void 0}var o=t(22);e.exports=r},{}],20:[function(t,e,n){function r(){}function o(t,e,n,r){return function(){return u.recordSupportability("API/"+e+"/called"),i(t+e,[f.now()].concat(s(arguments)),n?null:this,r),n?void 0:this}}var i=t("handle"),a=t(31),s=t(32),c=t("ee").get("tracer"),f=t("loader"),u=t(25),d=NREUM;"undefined"==typeof window.newrelic&&(newrelic=d);var p=["setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"],l="api-",h=l+"ixn-";a(p,function(t,e){d[e]=o(l,e,!0,"api")}),d.addPageAction=o(l,"addPageAction",!0),d.setCurrentRouteName=o(l,"routeName",!0),e.exports=newrelic,d.interaction=function(){return(new r).get()};var m=r.prototype={createTracer:function(t,e){var n={},r=this,o="function"==typeof e;return i(h+"tracer",[f.now(),t,n],r),function(){if(c.emit((o?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[f.now(),r,o],n),o)try{return e.apply(this,arguments)}catch(t){throw c.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,t],n),t}finally{c.emit("fn-end",[f.now()],n)}}}};a("actionText,setName,setAttribute,save,ignore,onEnd,getContext,end,get".split(","),function(t,e){m[e]=o(h,e)}),newrelic.noticeError=function(t,e){"string"==typeof t&&(t=new Error(t)),u.recordSupportability("API/noticeError/called"),i("err",[t,f.now(),!1,e])}},{}],21:[function(t,e,n){function r(t){if(NREUM.init){for(var e=NREUM.init,n=t.split("."),r=0;r0){var r=n[n.length-1];if(f&&f 1:23The Supreme Court is seen, Thursday, April 30, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)The Associated PressWASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a lawsuit over speech restrictions for immigration judges that touched on the rights of federal workers. The justices overturned a lower-court ruling that had allowed the case to proceed and raised questions about whether a complaint system for federal employees is still working as intended after the Republican president fired some of its top officials. Immigration judges are federal employees, despite their titles, and had wanted to sue over a policy restricting their public speeches that started in Trump's first term in office and continued under President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. The judges argued it was a free speech issue that belongs in federal court. The Trump administration disagreed, saying the judges must instead take their dispute to the complaint system for federal employees overseen by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court ruled on procedural grounds, but Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote to rebuke the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for responding to “political controversies of the day.” Tuesday's decision comes as the court weighs another lawsuit about Trump’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. The outcome is also expected to affect firing power over Merit Systems Protection Board members. The judges first sued in 2020, and the Supreme Court previously temporarily sided with them on an emergency basis in December. A union said in a statement that the judges were disappointed by the decision but the case is “far from over.” “Justice cannot endure when judges are intimidated into silence, nor can a nation remain free when the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of political ambition,” the National Association of Immigration Judges said. Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court. 24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a lawsuit over speech restrictions for immigration judges that touched on the rights of federal workers. The justices overturned a lower-court ruling that had allowed the case to proceed and raised questions about whether a complaint system for federal employees is still working as intended after the Republican president fired some of its top officials. Immigration judges are federal employees, despite their titles, and had wanted to sue over a policy restricting their public speeches that started in Trump's first term in office and continued under President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. The judges argued it was a free speech issue that belongs in federal court. The Trump administration disagreed, saying the judges must instead take their dispute to the complaint system for federal employees overseen by the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court ruled on procedural grounds, but Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote to rebuke the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for responding to “political controversies of the day.” Tuesday's decision comes as the court weighs another lawsuit about Trump’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. The outcome is also expected to affect firing power over Merit Systems Protection Board members. The judges first sued in 2020, and the Supreme Court previously temporarily sided with them on an emergency basis in December. A union said in a statement that the judges were disappointed by the decision but the case is “far from over.” “Justice cannot endure when judges are intimidated into silence, nor can a nation remain free when the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of political ambition,” the National Association of Immigration Judges said. Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.