Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges

Questions presented

SCOTUS records

1. QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the decision below, the court of appeals held— without notice to or briefing by the parties—that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, does not preclude suit in district court when “a factual record” shows that the CSRA is not “function[ing] as intended.” App., infra, 15a. The questions presented are:
2. Whether the decision below should be summarily reversed for violating the party-presentation principle.
3. Whether the decision below should be summarily reversed for failing to adhere to this Court’s precedents

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Immigration judges challenged an Executive Office for Immigration Review rule requiring supervisory approval for public speeches about their official duties, claiming First and Fifth Amendment violations. The district court held the challenge had to go through the Civil Service Reform Act review scheme, but the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded based on a broader issue the parties had not raised, asking for factfinding on whether that review scheme was functioning as Congress intended. The Court reversed because the court of appeals violated the party-presentation principle. The Court said the parties had argued only whether these particular claims were covered by the CSRA, not whether the CSRA might fail to channel any claims because of current conditions. By deciding a different, unraised question without giving the parties a chance to address it, the Fourth Circuit abused its discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.