Judge halts Trump order stripping federal workers’ union rights

A U.S. District judge has issued a preliminary injunction halting federal agencies from complying with an executive order from President Trump that curtails collective bargaining rights for federal employees pending the result of a lawsuit challenging the order. 

The American Federation for Government Workers, along with six other unions, filed a lawsuit in April in response to Trump's executive order that would exempt many federal agencies from engaging in collective bargaining requirements. The administration cited national security reasons for the move, as many of the agencies have a role in “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.” 

In a June 24 ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato of San Francisco approved a preliminary injunction temporarily halting 21 agencies from following the executive order’s stipulations

The executive order would effectively end collective bargaining rights for roughly 950,000 workers, according to an AFGE press release. The unions argued that the executive order came as retaliation for union lawsuits against other Trump administration actions, including lawsuits by AFGE responding to mass layoffs in multiple agencies.

Donato, though, questioned the expanded nature of the Trump administration’s label of “national security” to an “unprecedented” number of agencies.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley praised the judge’s ruling.

“President Trump revoked our members’ union rights in retaliation for our advocacy on behalf of federal workers and the American people, and we are grateful that Judge Donato saw through his disingenuous ‘national security’ justification and has ordered the immediate restoration of their rights,” Kelley in a press release.

Six AFGE cases have been afforded preliminary injunctions in various lawsuits launched against Trump administration orders, effectively blocking the administration’s orders from being effectuated until the suit is resolved. 

“It's so important because I think a lot of people understand how long litigation takes,” an AFGE representative said. “If you don’t have a preliminary injunction, you don’t actually get any relief until a decision at the trial or district court level, either on summary judgment or at a trial.”

The future of litigation against the Trump administration was thrown into question by the U.S. Supreme Court the same week the AFGE and Job Corps secured preliminary injunctions.

The Supreme Court’s decision on June 27 to limit the power of U.S. district judges’ issuance of nationwide injunctions has led to some concern among legal experts regarding the future of litigation against the Trump administration.

Nationwide injunctions are issued to halt federal orders pending the result of a lawsuit, similar to a preliminary injunction. Where the two orders differ is in scope. Nationwide injunctions apply to all affected agencies or individuals, even those outside of the specific individuals who brought the lawsuit. 

The Supreme Court’s decision also leaves carve-outs for litigation that the AFGE and others have already taken advantage of. Class action lawsuits, which allow groups of individuals or organizations to sue together over a shared issue, are one route the AFGE has taken already.

The union has also filed cases under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows the courts to “set aside” or disregard agency orders that violate the law.

“A lot of our cases are APA cases,” the AFGE representative said. “There was a footnote in the nationwide injunction case that talked about how that decision did not apply to cases filed under the APA.”

For now, the AFGE does not anticipate the Supreme Court decision to interfere in their litigation work, especially regarding their collective bargaining case.

“It won’t affect our collective bargaining case; it may affect our other cases, but likely not that extensively,” the AFGE representative said.