Federal Court Litigation Relating to Federal Workers (updated 5/20/26)

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.

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 February 10, 2026, AFGE filed a motion for a temporary restraining order concerning FEMA RIFs and other government actions.

• In April and May 2026, the case has been focused on discovery disputes concerning FEMA's CORE workforce reductions. Deposition testimony from FEMA's acting administrator revealed that a 50% staffing cut was directed by senior DHS officials, and that key decision-makers used Signal on personal devices to communicate about FEMA business, with messages set to auto-delete. Judge Illston ordered production of those communications, issued a preservation order covering more than 20 named individuals and more than two dozen FEMA-related Signal group chats, and expressed serious concern about potential destruction of federal records.

  • The government has filed repeated notices of partial or substantial compliance with discovery orders, which plaintiffs have contested. Compliance disputes remain active.

• On May 13, the court denied a motion by a key third-party deponent to quash his subpoena. His deposition is proceeding.

• The hearing on plaintiffs' FEMA preliminary injunction motion is scheduled for June 23, 2026.
  

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 December 3, AFGE and AFSA filed a supplemental complaint and TRO request to stop the impending mass terminations of employees at the State Department. On December 4, the court granted the TRO, preventing the RIF. On December 17, the court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining RIFs of State and Education employees. On December 22, the government filed a notice of appeal as to both the October 28 and December 17 preliminary injunctions.

On January 2, the Ninth Circuit granted the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. On January 6, AFGE filed an urgent request for a status conference regarding compliance with the December 17 preliminary injunction order.

On February 11, 2026, the court approved an extension of time “in light of the legislative uncertainty around the extension of the reduction in force (“RIF”) moratorium.” 

On March 6, 2026, the government filed a motion to dismiss the second amended and supplemental complaints.

The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 23, 2026.

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. The case was stayed through January 23, 2026. On January 28, the court issued a scheduling order setting a briefing schedule for dispositive motions.

In March 2026, the parties jointly moved to extend litigation deadlines. The court granted an extension on March 11 and ordered a status report due March 25. On March 25, defendants filed a further motion to stay litigation deadlines. The resolution of that motion is not reflected in the available docket entries.

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. The stay was lifted on February 18, 2026. The court ordered defendants to produce the administrative record by March 20, 2026, and directed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report by April 17, 2026. As of May 20, 2026, no joint status report appears on the docket.

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. 

On December 17, the D.C. Circuit vacated the August 15 panel decision and granted rehearing en banc in the Government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction. 

On December 30, the district court issued a memorandum opinion and order clarifying that the government’s refusal to request funding to fund the agency violates the preliminary injunction. On January 15, 2026, the agency informed the court that it had received the funds it requested from the Federal Reserve. NTEU filed its appellate brief on February 2, 2026.

Oral argument on the Government’s appeal of the preliminary injunction took place on February 24, 2026.

On March 31, the Government filed a motion to modify the stay pending appeal and for remand to reconsider the preliminary injunction to allow the CFPB to immediately carry out its updated RIF plan.

The government's March 31 motion to modify the stay pending appeal, remand to the district court, and hold the appeal in abeyance is now fully briefed before the en banc court. NTEU and the other appellees opposed the motion on April 17, and the government filed its reply on April 24. The motion is pending.

USAID: American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00352 (D.D.C); 25-5290 (D.C. Cir.). On July 25, 2025 the court dismissed the case, reasoning that it lacks jurisdiction over AFSA’s claims. AFGE appealed and filed its appellant brief on November 26. The government filed its brief on January 28, 2026. A D.C. Circuit panel held oral argument on April 23.

USAID: Greene v. USAID, Case No. 1:25-cv-04217 (D.D.C.). On December 3, three former USAID employees filed a complaint alleging that the administration carried out an invalid “Reduction in Force” and unlawfully terminated their employment because their duties involved DEI-related civil rights compliance. On April 30, 2026, the Government filed a motion to dismiss.

FMCS/IMLS/MBDA: State of Rhode Island v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00128 (D.R.I.), 25-1477; 26-1070 (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. On November 21, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States and permanently enjoined Defendants “from taking any future actions to implement, give effect to, comply with, or carry out the directives contained in the Reduction EO with respect to IMLS, MBDA, FMCS, and USICH.” On January 19, 2026, FMCS appealed.

• The government's appeal (26-1070) was docketed in the First Circuit on January 21, 2026. The government filed its opening brief on April 6, 2026. The plaintiff states filed their response brief on May 6, 2026. The government's reply is due May 27, 2026. Three law professors filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff states on May 8, 2026.

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. The court heard oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on December 17.

On December 30, the court granted summary judgment for the Plaintiff Unions and denied the government’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. The court set aside and vacated “Defendants’ policy disallowing the assignment of FMCS mediators to negotiations and disputes in the healthcare industry where the bargaining units are smaller than 250 employees, or in other industries where the bargaining units are smaller than 1,000 employees” and ordered Defendants “to reverse the reduction in force at FMCS justified by that policy.” On February 27, 2026, FMCS appealed.

On March 30, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the appeal.

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. The case is proceeding through discovery. On February 11, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for extra-record discovery. On April 1, the court granted a second round of discovery. On April 21, the court entered a new scheduling order governing summary judgment briefing.

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.On May 8, 2026, the court denied the government's second motion to dismiss and ordered defendants to answer the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

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. On December 11, the district court issued an indicative ruling stating it “would grant the Plaintiffs’ motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction if the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit were to remand the case for this purpose.” On December 16, the parties filed a joint motion to remand the case. On January 12, the court vacated and dissolved the June preliminary injunction. On January 15, 2026, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal and issued its mandate, closing the appellate proceedings. The district court case continues on the merits.

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. On January 12, 2026, the government filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. 

On March 7, 2026, in the case Widakuswara v. Lake (1:25-cv-01015), Judge Royce Lamberth (D.D.C.) voided the VOA layoffs. On March 17, Judge Lamberth granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Defendants violated the APA when they issued a March 2025 internal memorandum drastically reducing USAGM’s operations, placed employees on administrative leave, terminated contractors, and stopped broadcasting. The court vacated those actions as arbitrary and capricious and as unlawfully withheld agency action, but held that contractor Plaintiffs seeking reinstatement must bring their claims in the Court of Federal Claims. The court ordered the affected journalists and staff to be reinstated by March 23.

• The Government filed a notice of appeal on March 19 and a motion for partial stay pending appeal. On March 20, the court denied the Government’s motion, but vacated the March 23 reinstatement deadline. The court ordered the Government to file regular updates regarding compliance with the court’s March 17 order. On April 6, Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the court’s March 20 order.

• On March 31, the D.C. Circuit granted the government's motion to stay the return-to-work requirement in the March 17 order pending appeal. The vacatur provisions of the March 17 order were not stayed.

• On April 6, defendants also filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 7 summary judgment ruling.

• On May 14, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to enforce the March 20 order, requiring defendants to produce the Reconstitution Plan and compliance status reports within seven days. The court also denied defendants' motion for reconsideration.

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 25, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and a cross-motion to dismiss/cross-motion for summary judgment. On April 9, 2026, the parties stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice. This case is now closed. 

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. On August 12, the court granted in part Defendants’ motion to clarify the order on the preliminary injunction. On October 14, the Government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On November 14, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On November 3, 2025, the First Circuit dismissed the government's appeal (25-1780) and issued its mandate.

On March 27, 2026, Defendants filed a notice stating that they have rescinded several RIF notices. On April 7, the court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

On April 29, 2026, the court entered a joint stipulation providing that defendants will produce the administrative record by June 8, 2026, and the parties will file a joint status report by June 22, 2026, setting forth their views on next steps. The parties also agreed to stay the government's obligation to file an answer to the amended complaint until 30 days after any ruling on forthcoming cross-motions for summary judgment.

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. On January 22, 2026, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss as to agency defendants HHS, OMB, DOGE, OPM, ACF, FDA, and CDC, and granted the motion to dismiss as to the individual defendants (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Russell Vought, Elon Musk, Amy Gleason, Charles Ezell, Andrew Gradison, Martin Makary, Jim O’Neill, and Susan Monarez, all named in their official capacities). The government filed an answer on February 20. On March 20, the court dismissed claims brought by two of the plaintiffs, and all claims brought against the CDC. 

• On March 2, the court issued a scheduling order. Fact discovery closes September 21, 2026, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due the same date. Expert discovery closes February 12, 2027, and dispositive motions are due March 29, 2027. 

NIOSH: National Nurses United v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 1:25-cv-01538 (D.D.C.). Filed May 14, 2025. On March 23, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal after the Government reversed the actions challenged in this case. The court dismissed the case without prejudice.

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 November 19, Defendants filed an objection to the magistrate’s September 30 order requiring Defendants to respond to discovery requests. On December 16, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order, which includes an order for the government to produce a responsive administrative record within ten days. On January 28, 2026, the court granted a joint motion to hold the case in abeyance and ordered the parties to submit a status report within sixty days. As of May 20 no status report appears on the docket.

Mullady v. Office of Management and Budget, 8:26-cv-00573 (D. Md.). On February 13, 2026, a group of 142 former career federal employees filed a lawsuit alleging their RIF terminations were politically motivated and in violation of the due process clause, the APA, and the Privacy Act. 

Mass Termination of Probationary Employees

There are several actions pending in federal court concerning 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 in the MSPB’s weekly case reports 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. On February 27, 2026, the court ordered an administrative stay until the D.C. Circuit issues an opinion in National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, No. 25-5157, and the Supreme Court issues an opinion in Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332. The Court also struck Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

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 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.

AFGE filed its answering brief on March 13, 2026.

Goodman v. Lutnick, Case No. 8:25-cv-02097 (D. Md.). On June 30, 2025, former NOAA employees filed this class action suit. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed, with the government's reply filed December 4, 2025, plaintiffs' surreply filed December 8, 2025, and plaintiffs filing a notice of supplemental authority on January 23, 2026. The motion is pending.

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. On January 7, 2026, the government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss on February 2, 2026. The government filed its reply in support of the motion to dismiss on February 17, 2026. The motion is fully briefed and pending.

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 January 20, 2025, NTEU filed this suit challenging executive orders restricting collective bargaining rights for federal employees. On June 27, 2025, the court stayed the case and directed the parties to file a joint status report by October 27, 2025. A joint status report was filed December 19, 2025. On March 6, 2026, the court granted NTEU's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 2026. A new briefing schedule was entered March 17, 2026.

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. On November 24, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal because Plaintiffs intend to join the pending lawsuit in Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump, No. 8:25-cv-260.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump, Case No. 8:25-cv-00260 (D. Md.). Filed on January 28, 2025. On March 4, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. 

The case had been stayed since July 2, 2025. On February 17, 2026, the court lifted the stay and directed plaintiffs to respond to defendants' pending motion to dismiss.

On March 4, 2026, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. On March 12, the court extended the deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss until that motion to amend is resolved.

Government Accountability Project v. Office of Personnel Management, Case No. 1:25-cv-00347 (D.D.C.). On February 6, 2025, the Government Accountability Project and the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) filed this suit challenging OPM's authority to direct federal agencies to terminate probationary employees. The case was stayed on January 9, 2026. Plaintiffs' amended complaint is now due 21 days after the issuance of any executive order moving positions to Schedule Policy/Career.

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. NTEU filed an amended complaint on April 1, 2026. The Government filed its answer on April 13. On May 13, 2026, OPM filed a motion for summary judgment.

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. Plaintiffs filed their brief on February 6. OPM filed its response brief on April 17, 2026. Plaintiffs' reply brief is due May 22, 2026.

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. 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 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 next year: September 14, 2026. On December 12, the Government filed a motion to dismiss and to dissolve the preliminary injunction, arguing that the February rescission of collective bargaining rights is no longer in effect since Secretary Noem filed a new determination in September rescinding the employees’collective bargaining rights and this case concerns the February determination, now moot, rather than the new September rescission. On December 18, AFGE filed an emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction. 

On January 15, 2026, the court granted AFGE’s motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, and ordered Defendants to “immediately notify bargaining unit TSOs that, pursuant to the Preliminary Injunction issued by the Court on June 2, 2025, the September Noem Determination will not take effect on January 18, 2026, the 2024 CBA remains applicable and binding, and the currently pending grievances and arbitrations submitted under the 2024 CBA will continue to be processed.”

The government's motion to dismiss and to dissolve the preliminary injunction is fully briefed and pending. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint is also fully briefed and pending.

On May 11, 2026, the court suspended the May 18 dispositive motion deadline and ordered the parties to file a joint status report by May 22, 2026, to allow the court to reset case deadlines. The September 14, 2026 bench trial date remains in place pending that reset.

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. On December 15, a D.C. Circuit panel heard argument in this case consolidated with 25-5184 and 25-5303 and ordered supplemental briefing on jurisdictional issues. On December 22, the district court stayed proceedings pending the panel’s decision. NTEU filed a supplemental brief on January 5. The government filed a supplemental brief on January 14.

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. On February 26, 2026, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction.

The plaintiff unions filed a motion for a 30-day extension of time to petition for rehearing en banc, which the court granted on April 7, 2026. A petition for rehearing en banc was due May 13, 2026.

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. On December 15, a D.C. Circuit panel heard argument in this case consolidated with 25-5157 and 25-5303 and ordered supplemental briefing on jurisdictional issues. On December 22, the district court stayed proceedings pending the panel’s decision. AFSA filed a supplemental brief on January 5. The government filed a supplemental brief on January 14. The case remains stayed as of this latest update. 

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. On December 15, a D.C. Circuit panel heard argument in this case consolidated with 25-5184 and 25-5157 and ordered supplemental briefing on jurisdictional issues. On December 22, the district court stayed proceedings pending the panel’s decision. FEA filed a supplemental brief on January 5. The government filed a supplemental brief on January 14. The case is awaiting the D.C. Circuit panel's decision.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-02445 (D.D.C.); 25-5436 (D.C. Cir.).  Filed July 29, 2025. On September 30, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Government appealed the preliminary injunction on December 1. On March 23, 2026, the court ordered that the case be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the NTEU/AFSA/FEA cases argued in December.

National Association of Agriculture Employees v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-02657 (D.D.C.).  Filed August 13, 2025. On December 10, the court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the NTEU, AFSA, and FEA cases before the D.C. Circuit.

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 held oral argument on the PI motion on December 10. On December 22, the court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the NTEU, AFSA, and FEA cases before the D.C. circuit.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-02990  (D.D.C.).  Filed September 3, 2025. On December 22, the court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the NTEU, AFSA, and FEA cases before the D.C. circuit.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-03306 (D.D.C.); 26-5007 (D.C. Cir.). 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. On December 10, the court ordered the parties to file a joint status report following the resolution of the NTEU, AFSA, and FEA cases before the D.C. circuit. On December 22, the court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the NTEU, AFSA, and FEA cases before the D.C. circuit. The government appealed the preliminary injunction on January 8, 2026. On April 28, the D.C. circuit ordered the case to be held in abeyance pending the outcomes of National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, No. 25-5157; American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, No. 25-5184; and Federal Education Association v. Trump, No. 25-5303 (argued December 15, 2025).

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. On December 2, 2025, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal upon the Government’s unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal.

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. On December 22, the court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the NTEU, AFSA, and FEA cases before the D.C. circuit.

AFGE v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 1:25-cv-00583 (D.R.I.); (26-1321, 1st Cir.). 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. On November 25, AFGE filed an amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction to stay Defendants’ August 6 termination of the 2023 Master CBA and to enjoin Defendants from taking any action to effectuate the termination of the CBA. 

On March 13, 2026, the court granted AFGE’s' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It ordered Defendants to reinstate the Master CBA as well as any amendments, local supplemental agreements, and memoranda of understanding that were in place subsidiary to the Master CBA for the remainder of the agreed-upon term provided in the Master CBA.

On March 23, the court granted Defendants’ motion to clarify the preliminary injunction, confirming that its injunction requires reinstating the Master Collective Bargaining Agreement as written, without broader restrictions. 

On March 27, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the court’s March 13, 2026 preliminary injunction order (as clarified on March 23, 2026) against a March 26, 2026 re-termination letter issued by the government. The order stated that the re-termination letter was not in compliance with the court’s preliminary injunction. Judge DuBose ordered the government to show cause why the re-termination letter should not be considered by the court “to be in blatant violation” of the preliminary injunction and “therefore in contempt of this Court.” On April 6, the court denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction.

On March 27, the government filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction and enforcement orders. On May 16, the First Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction, but granted the government’s motion to stay the portion of the enforcement order that required compliance with the CBA. The First Circuit also denied the government’s stay motion related to their appeal of the lawfulness of the District Court’s enforcement order. Finally, they denied the government’s motion for an administrative stay as moot. The government’s appellant’s brief is due June 29, 2026.   

 The government has continued to seek extensions of time to answer the amended complaint. The answer deadline was extended to May 19, 2026. As of May 20, no answer to the amended complaint appears on the docket.

National Council of Prison Locals, AFGE v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Case No. 3:25-cv-01907 (D. Conn.). On November 13, NCPL filed this lawsuit challenging BOP’s September 25 termination of the Union’s collective bargaining agreement. On December 22, AFGE filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On February 13, BOP filed a motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, to transfer the case to D.D.C., or stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in AFGE v. Trump, 148 F.4th 648, 656 (9th Cir. 2025). On February 19, the court vacated its previous scheduling order, stating that it needed time to determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction. The court continued oral argument on AFGE’s motion for a preliminary injunction to April 30, 2026, to allow time for briefing and adjudication of BOP’s motion to dismiss and the motion to transfer. On April 28, the court denied BOP’s motion to dismiss, motion to stay, and motion to transfer the case.Oral argument on the preliminary injunction motion was held on April 30, 2026. The court ordered defendants to produce the certified administrative record by May 13, 2026. Plaintiffs' motion for supplemental discovery, if any, is due May 27, 2026. A telephonic scheduling conference is set for June 24, 2026, at which the court will address discovery, set an answer deadline, and set a summary judgment briefing schedule.

United Nurses Association of California v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 1:25-cv-00674 (D.R.I.). On December 17, a coalition of labor organizations filed a lawsuit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ implementation of Executive Order 14251 unlawfully resulted in the elimination of Plaintiffs’ collective bargaining rights and other statutory labor protections. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on January 12, 2026.

On March 27, 2026, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, stating: “The November 11, 2025 Rescission Order is preliminarily set aside for the Plaintiffs. The Defendants shall immediately reinstate the Plaintiffs’ CBAs and shall be governed by the terms of each of these CBAs. The Defendants shall also immediately notify the relevant bargaining units of this Order, shall continue or reinstate processing of pending grievances and arbitrations submitted pursuant to the CBAs, and shall accept new grievances filed pursuant to the CBAs.”

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, which are listed below. No action has been taken in these cases as of this 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. On November 25, the Government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending. The government filed its reply on January 20, 2026. Plaintiffs have filed notices of supplemental authority in February and April 2026, including a relevant decision from the Eastern District of Virginia and an SDNY decision in the Comey case. The motion is pending before Judge Cobb.

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.

On April 15, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to three counts and dismissed Plaintiff’s request for backpay and/or monetary damages. 

On May 19, 2026, Defendants’ filed a joint motion for a continuance and extension of the answer deadline. 

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. On December 5, the court stayed discovery pending a ruling on defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. On December 15, the Government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

On April 28, 2026, the court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding that it has jurisdiction over Comey's case pursuant to the federal question statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Defendants' answer is due May 26, 2026. An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for May 28, 2026.

Jackler v. DOJ, 26-1575 (Fed. Cir.). On Monday, March 23, 2026, two fired immigration judges filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the MSPB ruled that their dismissal complied with the constitutional powers of the president.

Petitioners filed a petition for rehearing en banc on April 2, 2026. Four groups filed amicus briefs in support of the petition: a coalition of federal employee unions including AFGE, AFSCME, IAM, IFPTE, and NFFE; Justice Connection; Whistleblower Aid; the Merit Systems Protection Board Professional Association; and six U.S. Senators. DOJ and OPM filed their response to the en banc petition on May 1, 2026. The petition is now fully briefed and pending before the court.

Additional Cases

National Federation of Federal Employees v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Case No. 3:26-cv-04406 (N.D. Cal.). Filed May 13, 2026. NFFE and six individual USDA employees filed a complaint alleging that Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins violated the Establishment Clause and the APA by sending a series of proselytizing Christian messages to all USDA employees from her official email account, culminating in an April 5, 2026 Easter email. 

Plaintiffs allege that the Secretary's messages coerce employees to accept her religious beliefs, express denominational favoritism, and depart without explanation from prior agency policy and USDA's own November 2025 guidance on protected religious expression. 

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the policy is unlawful, an injunction barring further proselytizing communications to USDA employees, and vacatur of the policy under the APA. An initial case management conference is scheduled for August 13, 2026.

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 heard oral argument on December 10, 2025. No decision has yet issued as of May 15, 2026. 

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 AFGE’s members affected by the Revised Message."The case was terminated on November 13, 2025 following entry of judgment.

AFGE v. Kupor, Case No. 1:25-cv-13305 (D. Mass). On November 6, AFGE sued the Office of Personnel Management over the administration’s “Merit Hiring Plan,” which includes a “Loyalty Question” asking prospective civil-service employees how they would help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities. On November 19, AFGE filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and stay. On March 11, the court held a hearing on the motion. The preliminary injunction motion remains pending and under advisement. On April 27, plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental facts with supporting declarations. The government responded on May 4.

AFGE v. FLRA, Case No. 1:26-cv-11747 (D. Mass). On April 15, 2026, a coalition of unions sued the FLRA to block an interim final rule that grants politically appointed board members control over union elections at federal agencies. On April 20, Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited summary judgment. On May 1, the Government filed an opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the government's cross-motion on May 8, and their reply in support of their own motion on May 13. Briefing is complete. 

AFGE v. FMCS, Case No. 1:26-cv-01676 (D.D.C.). On May 15, 2026, a coalition of unions sued the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to block a new policy which would require the affected federal agency to agree to an arbitration panel request, contrary to applicable FMCS regulations.

1 Note that the MSPB publishes both precedential and nonprecedential decisions. A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Although parties may cite nonprecedential orders, such orders have no precedential value. The Board and administrative judges also are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. By contrast, a precedential decision issued as an opinion and order has been identified by the Board as significantly contributing to the Board's case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).