NOTICE: This guidance is intended as general information and does not constitute legal advice. It does not address specific case facts, nor is it intended to be a substitute for individualized legal advice.

Federal Court Litigation Relating to Federal Workers (updated 11/13/25)

There is a considerable amount of litigation pending that may be relevant to federal employees.

A very thorough tracker of all litigation against the Trump administration can be found here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/.

The list below is not a comprehensive summary of all pending litigation. Rather, it is a summary of litigation that could have a direct impact on federal employees. For a more up to date and complete understanding of a case, you should check the corresponding docket. The titles of the cases below include links to their dockets. 

Reorganization of the Federal Government/RIFs

Multiple actions are pending challenging the effective destruction of various departments, agencies, and subdivisions thereof. Most of these actions are brought on behalf of beneficiaries of the agency’s programs, but unions representing federal employees are parties in some of these cases.

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.); 25-3030, 25-4476; 25-3293 (9th Cir.). 

• Summary: several labor unions, nonprofit organizations, and state and local governments filed suit against the administration, challenging the large-scale dismantling and reorganization of the federal government pursuant to EO 14210. Plaintiffs allege that the EO and the actions taken to implement it, including Reductions in Force (RIFs), violate the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

• On May 9, 2025, the district court granted a TRO barring OMB, OPM, DOGE, USDA, Commerce, Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Labor, State, Treasury, Transportation, VA, AmeriCorps, EPA, GSA, NLRB, NSF, SBA, and SSA from further implementation of RIFs. The court also ordered disclosure of RIF plans. On July 8, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction issued by the district court.  On July 28, the Ninth Circuit granted an emergency motion for an immediate administrative stay.  On September 9, the district court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss in all respects except it granted the motion with respect to the claims alleged against DOGE, with leave for Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to properly add DOGE to its claims. Discovery disputes are ongoing concerning the RIF plans. On September 19, the Ninth Circuit denied the Government’s petition for mandamus regarding in camera production of certain agency documents, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for remand so that the district court can reassess the preliminary injunction in light of recent developments including Trump v. Casa.

• On September 19, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction halting agency-wide reductions in force and agency reorganizations across 22 agencies. The court remanded the case for further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s stay order and intervening precedent. The panel also denied the administration’s mandamus petition seeking to block in camera review of agency reorganization plans, holding the district court had not committed clear error in ordering the production of agency RIF and Reorganization plans.

• On October 3, the district court denied the government’s request for an administrative stay during the government shutdown.

• As of October 17, the parties are still awaiting resolution of the petition for rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the ARRPs.

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget, Case No. 3:25-cv-08302 (N.D. Cal.). On September 30, AFGE and AFSCME filed a complaint asking the court to declare and set aside OMB and OPM’s purported authorization to administer RIFs during a government shutdown, and enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. On October 28, the court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining RIFs during the shutdown at over twenty federal agencies for any program that includes bargaining unit members from AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE, SEIU, NAGE, NTEU, IFPTE, and AFT.  On November 14, the court ordered Defendants to file a report on what actions have been taken on the RIFs issued as of October 1. The report is due on November 21.

AmeriCorps: State of Maryland v. Corporation for National and Community Service, Case No. 1:25-cv-01363, (D. Md). On June 5, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction restoring grants and ordering Defendants to place NCCC members back into service.  On July 10, the court issued a modified preliminary injunction to clarify that the scope of the relief would only apply to actions that harm the Plaintiff States following Trump v. Casa, Inc. On August 7, the States filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction. As of October 22, this motion has not yet been ruled upon.

AmeriCorps: Elev8 Baltimore, Inc. v. Corp. for National and Community Service, Case No. 1:25-cv-01458-NJM (D. Md.) On July 7, 2025, the district court granted in part a preliminary injunction, ordering the reinstatement of AmeriCorps unionized employees; prohibiting the defendants from firing any more Americorps employees, sending them RIF notices, or placing them on administrative leave; and ordering the reinstatement of all NCCC projects, VISTA programs, and AmeriCorps funding.

CFPB: National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, Case No. 1:25-cv-00381 (D.D.C.), 25-5091 (D.C. Cir.) On April 18, 2025, the district court enjoined the RIF announced by the CFPB. On April 28, 2025, the Court of Appeals lifted its prior partial stay and restored the portion of the trial court’s order preventing RIFs pending a decision on the merits in the appeal of the preliminary injunction. On August 15, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims regarding loss of employment. On September 29, NTEU filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The Government responded on October 21.

USAID: American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00352 (D.D.C); 25-5290 (D.C. Cir.). On July 25, the court dismissed the case, reasoning that it lacks jurisdiction over AFSA’s claims.  Appeal pending.

FMCS/IMLS/MBDA: State of Rhode Island v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00128 (D.R.I.), 25-1477 (1st Cir.). On May 6, 2025, the district court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the government’s dismantling of the three agencies. On September 11, the First Circuit denied the Defendants’ motion to stay the preliminary injunction. On September 12, the district court stayed any actions implementing the executive order as to USICH, including RIFs, until the resolution of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On October 2, the district court denied the government’s motion to stay due to the government shutdown. The First Circuit has scheduled oral argument for December 4. On October 10, the Government filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the court’s September 12 order staying implementation of the executive order as to USICH. On October 17, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction.

FMCS: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Goldstein, Case No. 1:25-cv-03072 (S.D.N.Y). On May 19, 2025, the district court denied the preliminary injunction as moot in light of the injunction entered in State of Rhode Island v. Trump. A hearing will be scheduled after the government shutdown ends.

Department of Education: Somerville Public Schools v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-10677 (D. Mass.) (lead case: State of New York v. McMahon, Case No. 1:25-cv-10601 (D. Mass)). On May 22, 2025, the district court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the Defendants from carrying out their RIF plan. On June 2, the First Circuit denied a stay. On July 14, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the preliminary injunction. On October 1, the court granted an assented-to motion to vacate the preliminary injunction, and granted the Government’s motion to stay proceedings due to the government shutdown. The court lifted the stay on November 17 but no further action has been taken.

Department of Education: NAACP v U.S., Case No. 8:25-cv-00965 (D. Md.). On August 19, 2025, the district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 18, the Government filed a second motion to dismiss.

Department of Education (Office for Civil Rights): Victim Rights Law Center v. United States Department of Education, Case No. 1:25-cv-11042 (D. Mass); 25-1787 (1st Cir.). On June 18, 2025, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking Defendants from instituting the RIF as to OCR employees. On September 29, the First Circuit granted the Government’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction based on the Supreme Court’s order in McMahon.

VOA: Abramowitz v. Lake, Case No. 1:25-cv-00887 (D.D.C.); 25-5145 (D.C. Cir.); 25-5314 (D.C. Cir.). On April 22, 2025, the district court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering the defendants to “take all necessary steps to return USAGM [U.S. Agency for Global Media] employees and contractors to their status prior to the March 14, 2025 Executive Order” and restore USAGM grants and statutorily required programming. On May 3, the D.C. Circuit granted a stay. On May 7, The D.C. Circuit en banc stayed part of the panel’s order, but not the portion staying the district court’s reinstatement order.  On August 28, the district court granted partial summary judgment to VOA Director Abramowitz, determining that his termination was unlawful and enjoining Defendants from removing Abramowitz from his position and granting expedited discovery concerning Defendants’ compliance with the prior orders. The court denied Defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of the order granting partial summary judgment. On September 29, the district court suspended the planned RIF at USAGM. On November 17, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

IMLS: American Library Association v. Sonderling, 1:25-cv-01050 (D.D.C.). On May 1, 2025, the district court issued a temporary restraining order. The judge, among other things, ordered that the agency shall not take any further actions to dissolve IMLS. On June 6, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 5, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 19, the court set a briefing schedule.

HHS: State of New York v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 1:25-cv-00196 (D.R.I.); 25-1780 (1st Cir.). On July 1, 2025, the district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing HHS from proceeding with RIFs in several areas of HHS, specifically the CDC (including NIOSH), the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, and the Office of Head Start and Head Start employees. On July 18, the court denied Defendants’ motion to vacate the preliminary injunction and denied Defendants’ alternative request for a stay pending appeal. On August 12, the court granted in part Defendants’ motion to clarify the order on the preliminary injunction. On September 17, the First Circuit denied the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. On October 3, the district court denied the government’s motion to stay proceedings during the government shutdown. On October 14, the Government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On October 30, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal by stipulation of the parties.  On November 14, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

HHS: Jackson v. Kennedy, 1:25-cv-01750 (D.D.C.). A group of terminated HHS employees filed this class action suit on June 3, 2025. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 5.

NIOSH: National Nurses United v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 1:25-cv-01538 (D.D.C.). Filed May 14, 2025. The Government filed a motion to dismiss and simultaneously filed a request to waive their responsibility to file an administrative record. The Union filed a motion to compel production of the administrative record and an opposition to the motion to dismiss that explained why the administrative record is needed. As of October 1, these motions have not yet been ruled upon.

NIOSH: Wiley v. Kennedy, 2:25-cv-00227 (S.D.W Va.). On May 13, 2025, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and required restoration of NIOSH’s Respiratory Health Division. On October 7, the court granted the government’s motion to stay proceedings during the government shutdown.

Mass Termination of Probationary Employees

Three actions pending in federal court concern the mass termination of probationary employees. In addition, employees at multiple departments and agencies have filed putative class appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board. The federal cases are listed below and further information about the MSPB cases can be found here. 

National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00420 (D.D.C). On February 20, 2025, the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because claims must first be brought in agencies. 

American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Office of Personnel Management and Ezell, Case No. 3:25-cv-01780 (N.D. Cal.), 25-1677 (9th Cir.), 24A904 (SCOTUS) 25-2637 (9th Cir. Remand), 25-5875. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s reinstatement order. On April 18, the district court granted provisional relief, enjoining OPM from ordering federal agencies to terminate federal employees (appeal pending). On September 12, the district court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs and denied Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. In its order, with regard to all agency defendants except for the Department of State, NASA, OMB, and OPM, the court made the preliminary injunction permanent with modifications; entered a declaratory judgment that OPM lacked the authority and violated the APA by directing other agencies to terminate probationary employees; and required numerous corrective actions for the agencies to take with respect to the terminated employees’ statuses and personnel files. On September 16, the Government filed a notice of appeal, which is now pending. On October 2, the Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot the government’s appeals of the preliminary injunctions and denied the government’s request to consolidate those appeals with the appeal of the final judgment that is now pending.

Goodman v. Lutnick, Case No. 8:25-cv-02097 (D. Md.). On June 30, 2025, former NOAA employees filed this class action suit.

Saladino v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Case No. 1:25-cv-03107 (D.D.C.). On September 10, 2025, five anonymous former federal probationary employees filed this suit alleging that the Office of Special Counsel violated the APA by ordering its staff to close investigations into over two thousand complaints that were filed by probationary employees alleging that their terminations were prohibited personnel practices.

Creation of New Schedule Policy/Career (previously called Schedule F)

Four actions are pending in federal district court seeking to block implementation of Executive Order 14171. EO 14171, published on January 20, 2025, mandates that the Office of Personnel Management create a new Schedule Policy/Career category of federal employees who would lack just cause and accompanying procedural protections and requires OPM to work with departments and agencies to identify positions to move onto the new Schedule. No relief has been granted in any of the cases as of this time. 

National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00170 (D.D.C.). On June 26, 2025, the district court granted Defendant’s Consent Motion for a Stay.

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00264 (D.D.C.). On June 30, 2025, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to stay pending the issuance of a final rule and directed the parties to file a status update after 120 days.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump, Case No. 8:25-cv-00260 (D. Md.). Filed on January 28, 2025.

Government Accountability Project v. Office of Personnel Management, Case No. 1:25-cv-00347 (D.D.C.). Filed on February 6, 2025.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Office of Personnel Management, Case No. 1:25-cv-03948 (D.D.C.). On November 14, NTEU sued the Office of Personnel Management under the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that the administration failed to respond to records requests identifying which positions agencies seek to reclassify as Schedule Policy/Career in order to reduce their removal protections.

Fork-in-the-Road Deferred Resignation Offer.

An action is pending in federal district court challenging the so-called “Fork in the Road” offer of “deferred resignation.” The offer, sent to nearly all federal employees, gave employees the option to receive compensation until September 30, 2025, if they resigned by February 6, 2025. The unions argue that the program violates federal laws and the Constitution. The unions ask the court to declare the program unlawful, void the program, and immediately and permanently suspend the February 6 deadline. The court initially suspended the deadline, but later lifted the suspension and denied the unions’ requests for a preliminary injunction.

American Federation of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Ezell, Case No. 1:25-cv-10276 (D. Mass.); 25-1959 (1st Cir.). On February 12, 2025, the district court dissolved the previously issued TRO and denied further preliminary injunctive relief due to lack of Article III standing. On September 24, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 7, the Plaintiff Unions filed a notice of appeal.

Rescission of Collective Bargaining Rights

On March 7, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security ended collective bargaining rights for TSA employees pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44935 note. On March 27, 2025, the White House issued Executive Order 14521, which summarily revoked collective bargaining rights and invalidated CBAs at numerous agencies on the ground that bargaining at these agencies presents a “national security risk.” The White House claimed this authority under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The full list of agencies and departments affected is detailed here. OPM published guidance on March 27, found here. 

On August 28, 2025, the White House issued a new executive order to end collective bargaining rights at additional agencies “with national security missions” including NASA, PTO, and USAGM.

Most of the following cases challenge the Administration’s revocation of bargaining rights and OPM’s guidance. Plaintiffs generally argue that the EO violates the First Amendment because it was issued in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ filing of lawsuits and grievances challenging various Trump Administration actions. The Plaintiffs also challenge the EO as ultra vires and argue that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s Procedural Due Process Clause, Takings Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. In addition, the Government has filed two actions, the last two cases listed below, that seek declaratory judgments saying that the unions’ contracts are rescinded by the March 27 EO.  

American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO v. Noem, Case No. 2:25-cv-00451 (W.D. Wa.) Plaintiffs argue that termination of a negotiated union contract that protects approximately 47,000 Transportation Safety Officer (TSOs) (1) constitutes unconstitutional retaliation against AFGE for exercising its right to advocate for federal workers, (2) violates Fifth Amendment due process, and (3) violates the Administrative Procedure Act. On June 2, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. On August 13, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court has set a three-day bench trial for September 14, 2026. On October 17, the court reassigned the case to Judge Jamal Whitehead.

National Treasury Employees Union v Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00935 (D.D.C.), 25-5157 (D.C. Cir.) On April 28, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. On May 16, the D.C. Circuit granted the Government’s request for a stay pending appeal. On July 16, the D.C. Circuit denied the motion for rehearing en banc.  

American Federation Of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-03070 (N.D. Cal.), 25-4014 (9th Cir.). On June 24, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing Section 2 of Executive Order 14251 on the grounds that it constitutes retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights. On August 1, the Ninth Circuit granted Defendants’ request for a stay of the injunction pending appeal.

American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-01030 (D.D.C.); 25-5184 (D.C. Cir.). On May 14, 2025, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. The court found that Executive Order 14251 was unlawfully applied to the agency employees. On June 20, the D.C. Circuit granted the Government a stay pending appeal.  On July 30, the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc regarding the stay pending appeal. On August 4, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Oral argument in the D.C. Circuit will take place in December 2025. On October 20, the D.C. Circuit denied the Government’s motion for a stay during the shutdown.

Federal Education Association v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-01362 (D.D.C.); 25-5303 (D.C. Cir.). Filed May 5, 2025. On August 14, the district court granted a preliminary injunction. On September 25, the D.C. Circuit denied the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. Oral argument will take place on December 15, 2025.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-02445 (D.D.C.).  Filed July 29, 2025.  On September 30, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

National Association of Agriculture Employees v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-02657 (D.D.C.).  Filed August 13, 2025.

National Weather Service Employees Organization v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-02947 (D.D.C.).  The NWSEO and the Patent Office Professional Association filed this case on September 2, 2025, following the August 28 executive order. On October 24, Plaintiff Unions filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court has rescheduled oral argument for December 10, 2025, at 1:30 PM.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-02990  (D.D.C.).  Filed September 3, 2025.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-03306 (D.D.C.). On September 19, AFSCME and AFGE filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction based on the August 28 EO stripping employees at USAGM and VOA of their collective bargaining rights.  On November 18, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and ordered that “all Defendants, with the exception of President Trump, are enjoined from implementing Section 2 of Executive Order 14343 with respect to the Plaintiffs’ bargaining units at USAGM and all USAGM employees represented by any Plaintiff” which includes cancelling the CBA(s) between USAGM and Plaintiffs and refusing to recognize Plaintiffs as the exclusive representative for USAGM employees.

Department of Defense v. American Federation of Government Employees, Case No. 6:25-cv-00119 (W.D. Tex.) On April 21, 2025, AFGE filed a motion to dismiss. On July 23, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, asserting that (1) there were not any redressable injuries to confer standing, and (2) Plaintiffs sought an impermissible advisory opinion. On September 19, the Government filed a notice of appeal.

Department of Treasury v. National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 73, Case No. 2:25-cv-00049 (E.D. Ky.); 25-5656 (6th Cir.). On May 20, 2025, the district court granted summary judgment to NTEU Chapter 73 and dismissed the suit. On September 30, the Sixth Circuit granted the Government’s motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal.

IBEW v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-03826 (D.D.C.). Nine IBEW locals filed this lawsuit on October 31, alleging that the government unlawfully terminated IBEW members’ collective bargaining rights in retaliation for IBEW’s criticism of the administration. IBEW seeks to enjoin the administration from excluding IBEW from collective bargaining.

AFGE v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 1:25-cv-00583 (D.R.I.). AFGE filed this lawsuit on November 4, 2025, alleging that EO 14251 and the Department’s termination of their 2023 Master CBA violates the First and Fifth Amendments and the APA.

Article II Terminations

The Administration has terminated a large number of employees, including DOJ employees associated with Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s prosecutions and others, asserting that the President has authority under Article II to terminate employees without cause and without any due process. In cases in which those employees have filed appeals with the MSPB, the agencies have taken the position that the Board lacks jurisdiction when the President exercises his Article II authority. Several of the employees subject to such dismissal have filed actions in federal court. No action has occurred in any of those cases to date. 

Gordon v. Executive Office of the President, Case No. 1:25-cv-02409 (D.D.C). On July 24, three long-time DOJ employees filed this lawsuit against the administration, alleging that their firings have caused them reputational harm, loss of income and harm to future employment prospects, and claiming that their removals were politically motivated and retaliatory. They argue that their terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections, and failure to follow certain statutory protections under the Civil Service Reform Act and Merit Systems Principles. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including reinstatement to their positions within the department, backpay, and a name-clearing hearing.

Comans v. Executive Office of the President, Case No. 1:25-cv-01237 (E.D. Va.). On July 24, terminated FEMA CFO Mary Comans filed a complaint challenging her termination from the agency. Ms. Comans alleges reputation damage, loss of income and harm to future employment prospects due to the abrupt and unlawful termination. She argues that the termination violated Due Process and the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the administration’s Executive Order that enabled her dismissal unconstitutionally and unlawfully limits civil service protections for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES). Comans also argues that the MSPB has become so dysfunctional that it no longer provides an effective remedy. She seeks reinstatement, backpay, declaratory and injunctive relief, and a name-clearing hearing.

Comey v. United States Department of Justice, Case No. 1:25-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.). On September 15, Maurene Comey, former AUSA for the Southern District of New York, filed a complaint alleging that her termination violates the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) by ignoring established pre- and post- removal procedures, Articles I and II of the Constitution and Separation of Powers since the dismissal violated Congress’s authority to regulate the removal of federal employees created by the CSRA, her First Amendment right to free speech and association, her Fifth Amendment due process, property interest and liberty rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act as ultra vires in violation of statutory authority. She seeks declaratory relief, reinstatement to her role as AUSA and backpay.

Additional Cases

Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Case No. 25-cv-00300 (E.D. Va.), 25-1527 (4th. Cir.). Plaintiffs are U.S. intelligence officers who were assigned to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives at ODNI and CIA. On March 31, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a Preliminary Injunction in part, enjoining the agency from terminating any Plaintiff without court approval. On May 6, the Government appealed and on May 19, the district court stayed the proceedings pending the Court of Appeals’ decision.  The Fourth Circuit will hear oral argument on December 10, 2025.

AFGE v. U.S. Department of Education, Case No. 1:25-cv-03553 (D.D.C.). On October 3, 2025, AFGE filed a complaint alleging that the Department violated employees’ First Amendment rights by including partisan messaging in employees’ out-of-office messages during the government shutdown. On November 7, the court granted AFGE’s motion for summary judgment and denied the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. In its order, the court concluded that the government violated the employees’ First Amendment rights, directed the Department to remove all partisan language from the employees’ out of office email messages, and enjoined the Department from future modifications that include partisan speech. The court limited the injunction to affected AFGE members.