The policy of the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) that requires immigration judges to undergo an approval process before they can speak or write publicly has been contested in a federal court. Members of the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), a group of voluntary immigration judges, have lodged the complaint.
At the heart of the matter lies the constitutional right of free speech. The immigration judges maintain that the policy curtails their First Amendment rights and have brought this to light in their complaint. Their case further argues that the law is vague and could potentially breach the Fifth Amendment. This case has been filed at the U.S. District Court for the district of Eastern Virginia.
Recently, the federal court in Virginia rendered a judgment on this matter. It was deemed that the judges have a standing to bring forth a First Amendment challenge against the 2021 “Speaking Engagements” policy of the EOIR. However, the same court insisted that the complaint ought to be raised administratively before being brought to the judiciary.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema explained that the constitutional claims of the NAIJ, while reasonable, need first to be pursued through the CSRA’s administrative procedure. Only then, if unsuccessful, would the plaintiff potentially be entitled to a review in the district court.
For more details on this legal development, follow the ongoing case on Law.com.