Lawsuit
National Association of Immigration Judges v. Neal
A lawsuit challenging a government policy silencing immigration judges
On July 1, 2020, the Knight Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a policy of the Executive Office for Immigration Review that imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the speech of immigration judges. The policy categorically prohibits immigration judges from speaking or writing publicly in their personal capacities about immigration or about the agency that employs them. On all other topics, the policy requires immigration judges to obtain EOIR’s prior approval.
The Knight Institute represents the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), a non-partisan, non-profit voluntary association that represents all non-managerial immigration judges in the United States. For years, members of NAIJ regularly spoke at conferences, guest lectured at universities and law schools, participated in immigration-law trainings, and spoke to local community groups, all in their personal capacities. But in 2017, EOIR issued a speaking-engagement policy that sharply curtailed the ability of immigration judges to speak publicly in their personal capacities. A revised version of the policy, issued in 2020, is even more restrictive. On October 12, 2021, EOIR issued a new speaking-engagement policy, which cancels its earlier policy.
The lawsuit argues that the policy violates the First Amendment right of immigration judges to speak publicly on matters of public concern, and the First Amendment right of the public to hear them. It also argues that the policy is void for vagueness under the First and Fifth Amendments.
Status: On September 21, 2023, the district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss the case.
Case information: Nat'l Ass'n of Immigration Judges v. Neal, No. 1:20-cv-00731 (E.D. Va.), No. 20-1868 and 23-2235 (4th Cir.).
Press Statements
Analysis
-
Senate Judiciary leaders question Garland about policy silencing immigration judges
By Ramya Krishnan -
Immigration judges will fight Justice Department’s attempt to silence us
By Ashley Tabaddor & Samuel B. Cole -
Revised Justice Department Policy Still Silences Immigration Judges
By Stephanie Krent -
The Trump Administration Is Gagging America’s Immigration Judges
By Cristian Farias
Legal Filings
Click to highlight response chains
-
4th Cir. (23-2235)
-
E.D. Va.
-
Opinion
-
Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority
-
Exhibit A
-
Exhibit B
-
Government's Reply
-
Plaintiff's Opposition
-
Government's Motion to Dismiss
-
2d Amended Complaint
-
Attachment 1
-
Attachment 2
-
Attachment 3
-
Order (dismissing amended complaint)
-
Government's Reply
-
Plaintiff's Opposition
-
Government's Motion to Dismiss
-
Exhibit A
-
Amended Complaint
-
Opinion (denying motion for a preliminary injunction)
-
Plaintiff's Reply
-
Supplemental Declaration of A. Ashley Tabaddor
-
Exhibit N
-
Exhibit O
-
Government's Opposition
-
Exhibit 1
-
Exhibit 2
-
Exhibit 3
-
Exhibit 4
-
Exhibit 5
-
Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
-
Declaration of Laura Lynch
-
Declaration of A. Ashley Tabaddor
-
Exhibits A–M
-
Complaint
-
-
4th Cir. (20-1868)
-
Order (granting motion for rehearing)
-
Government's Response
-
Temporary Stay of Mandate
-
Notice (mooting motion to vacate)
-
Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and Petition for Rehearing
-
Exhibit 1
-
Opinion
-
Plaintiff's Letter of Supplemental Authority
-
Exhibit A
-
Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief
-
Government's Supplemental Brief
-
Joint Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Briefs
-
Order (extending abeyance)
-
Government's Response
-
Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay
-
Government's Status Update
-
Government's Status Report
-
Order (placing case in abeyance)
-
Government's Motion to Stay Appeal
-
Plaintiff's Reply Brief
-
Government’s Opposition
-
Amicus Briefs (in support of Plaintiff)
-
National Treasury Employees Union
-
Labor Law Scholars and Experts
-
Plaintiff's Opening Brief
-
Joint Appendix
-