Cases challenging Executive Orders that stripped collective bargaining rights from federal employees and agency actions terminating union contracts under them. On March 7, 2025, DHS 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 14251, excluding numerous agencies from the federal labor-management relations program based on asserted national security concerns. OPM guidance followed the same day. On August 28, 2025, the White House issued Executive Order 14343, extending exclusions to additional agencies, including NASA, PTO, and USAGM. Most cases challenge the orders and OPM guidance as ultra vires and unconstitutional, including under the First and Fifth Amendments. The Government has also filed actions seeking declaratory judgments that union contracts were rescinded under the March 27 EO.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.

The court granted a preliminary injunction on June 2, 2025, barring the Department of Homeland Security and TSA from implementing the February 2025 determination terminating the agreement and from denying Transportation Security Officers rights guaranteed by the 2024 collective bargaining agreement. The Secretary issued a second determination on September 29, 2025 purporting to terminate the agreement again, and the court clarified on January 15, 2026 that the injunction reaches that determination as well. On July 28, 2026 the court denied the government's second motion to dismiss and its motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, holding that the supplemental complaint is not moot and that the government failed to show that the September determination or the Ninth Circuit's decision in AFGE v. Trump, 148 F.4th 648 (9th Cir. 2025), warrants dissolution. The government answered the amended complaint on July 27, 2026. The court granted a stipulated extension of the government's deadline to file the administrative record on August 13, 2026. The preliminary injunction remains in full force.
—

National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-00935 (D.D.C.), 25-5157 (D.C. Cir.)
NTEU filed this suit on March 31, 2025 challenging Executive Order 14251, which excluded employees at agencies across the federal government from coverage under Chapter 71 based on national security determinations. NTEU argues the order exceeds the President's authority and was issued in retaliation for the union's protected activity. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and the government appealed.

The preliminary injunction is stayed pending appeal, and district court proceedings are stayed as well, so the executive order remains in effect. The D.C. Circuit heard argument in December 2025 in this appeal and two related ones. No decision has issued. The last district court filing was January 9, 2026.
—

Next Case [there are 17 more cases for this section]…

Cases challenging the reclassification of career positions into an at-will category that removes civil service protections and appeal rights.

Cases challenging mass layoffs, agency restructurings, and efforts to eliminate agencies Congress created.

Cases brought by career employees removed on the theory that the President's constitutional authority overrides the protections Congress enacted.

Cases challenging the terminations of employees serving probationary or trial periods, and the direction agencies received to carry them out.

Cases challenging the program offering federal employees continued pay in exchange for resigning, and how it was created and administered.

Cases affecting federal workers that fall outside the categories above, including telework and reasonable accommodation denials, political screening in hiring, and retaliation against union activity.