Docket 25-767
Margolin v. Naij
DecidedMay 26, 2026
Per Curiamdecision
Source: CourtListener.
Court Says Fourth Circuit Wrongly Decided Immigration Judges' Case on Grounds No One Argued
What it does
The Supreme Court reverses the Fourth Circuit's decision and sends the case back for further proceedings. It holds that the appeals court improperly decided the case based on an issue neither party raised or briefed, instead of ruling on the narrow question the parties actually presented.
Who benefits
The Executive Office for Immigration Review and other federal agencies benefit from having the original, narrower legal dispute resolved on the terms the parties actually argued, rather than having courts introduce new theories on their own.
Who is affected
The National Association of Immigration Judges, whose case is sent back for further proceedings rather than getting the broader ruling the Fourth Circuit had given it about whether the entire administrative review system (the Civil Service Reform Act's process through the Merit Systems Protection Board) is currently functioning as Congress intended.
Practical impact
The case returns to the lower courts to resolve only the narrow question the parties originally argued: whether this specific challenge to the speech policy is the kind of workplace claim covered by the Civil Service Reform Act's administrative review process. The broader question of whether the entire administrative review system is functioning as Congress intended, given personnel changes at the Merit Systems Protection Board, will not be examined through the fact-finding process the Fourth Circuit had ordered, at least not on this basis.
Majority reasoning
The Court explained that federal courts follow a "party presentation principle," meaning judges are supposed to decide only the questions the parties actually raise and argue, not go searching for other legal issues on their own. Here, both sides agreed that claims like this one must generally go through the Civil Service Reform Act's administrative review process rather than directly to federal court, and they only disputed whether this particular claim fit within that process. Instead of ruling on that narrow question, the Fourth Circuit raised on its own whether recent political developments—such the removal of Merit Systems Protection Board members—cast doubt on whether the entire administrative review system was still working as Congress intended, and sent the case back for fact-finding on that new theory. The Court found this was the same kind of overreach it had recently criticized in another case, Clark v. Sweeney, where the Fourth Circuit granted relief based on a legal theory nobody had presented, without giving either side a chance to respond to it.
Constitutional question
Did the Fourth Circuit violate the principle that courts should only decide the legal issues the parties themselves raised, rather than issues the court invents on its own?