The Solidarity Docket
June 18, 2026
This week brings a significant appellate development in the litigation over Article II terminations, continued implementation of Schedule Policy/Career and its acknowledgment form requirements, and a full slate of rulemaking and legislative activity affecting federal workers' rights. The public comment deadline on OPM's proposed non-disclosure agreement rule is coming up. We will also preview the upcoming hearing in the FEMA reduction-in-force litigation.Federal Circuit Takes Article II Termination Case En Banc
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit willdecide whether the President's Article II authority overrides civil service removal protections, a question with direct consequences for the employment security of two million career federal employees. On June 17, the court voted to hear Jackler v. Department of Justice before the full court (“en banc”) rather than a standard three-judge panel.
As we have covered previously, the case involves two immigration judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, terminated in 2025 with Article II of the Constitution cited as the sole justification. An administrative law judge had ordered their reinstatement, but the Merit Systems Protection Board reversed that ruling in March 2026, relinquishing jurisdiction over adverse actions in which agencies invoke constitutional authority. The Board held, for the first time, that inferior officers with limited duties may be removed at will, effectively invalidating Civil Service Reform Act protections in force since 1978. The administration has used Article II terminations broadly since January 2025, including at DOJ, DHS, and HHS. Petitioners must submit a brief by July 14, 2026.
Amicus briefs supporting en banc review were filed by a coalition of unions including AFGE, AFSCME, IAM, IFPTE, and NFFE; andJustice Connection, among others. Justice Connection’s brief is among those arguing that only a full-court ruling could provide the uniform answer this constitutional question requires.
In a related development, the government filed a separate motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 5 in Comey v. Department of Justice (S.D.N.Y.), the case brought by a former AUSA challenging her Article II termination. That motion is also pending.
Both cases are followed in detail on our Litigation Tracker.
Schedule P/C Acknowledgment Forms Raise Questions
The question Rise Up hears more than any other right now is this: I received an acknowledgment form about Schedule Policy/Career. What is it, and what do I do?
Rise Up addressed that question directly this week at a townhall co-hosted with Democracy Forward/Civil Service Strong, AFGE, and the Partnership for Public Service. Here’s what we discussed about Schedule P/C Acknowledgment Forms:
When an agency moves a position into Schedule P/C, OPM's implementing regulations require the agency to notify the affected employee. The acknowledgment form is that notification. Signing it confirms receipt. It does not mean the employee agrees the reclassification is lawful, and it does not waive any legal rights.
Schedule P/C derives its claimed legal effect from the executive order itself and OPM's implementing guidance. Those documents exist and operate whether or not an employee signs anything. The courts will determine the legality of Schedule P/C, and they will do so regardless of what any individual employee signed or did not sign. A worker's signature has no bearing on that outcome.
OurSchedule P/C fact sheet covers the full range of guidance beyond these forms, and what you should know if your position is being converted to Schedule P/C. If you have questions about your personal situation you are encouraged to contact your union representative, if applicable, and sign up for a free legal consultation clinic with Rise Up.
In related litigation news, the National Treasury Employees Union filed an amended complaint on June 17 in its pending Schedule P/C challenge, updating the case with the government’s latest actions towards implementation. Litigation challenging Schedule P/C on statutory and constitutional grounds remains active across four federal district courts, you can follow those cases on our Litigation Tracker.
OPM's Proposed NDA Draws Whistleblower Protection Concerns; Comments Due June 26
OPM has proposed requiring all federal employees to sign a non-disclosure agreement covering a broad range of internal government information, including agency operations, personnel matters, procurement processes, and pre-decisional or deliberative material not yet publicly available. The proposal,published in the Federal Register on May 27, would leave each agency to decide whether to require the NDA as a condition of employment. If signed, the agreement would remain binding throughout an employee's tenure and for five years after departure from that position.
OPM states that the proposal does not restrict whistleblower protections and is intended to reinforce accountability and prevent unauthorized disclosures. Critics, including the Project on Government Oversight and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, argue that the proposal as written is broad enough to chill protected disclosures even where whistleblower rights nominally remain intact.
A further concern involves OPM's pending suitability regulations. Under a June 2025 OPM guidance, employees who fail to comply with applicable non-disclosure obligations can be found not suitable for federal employment. That framework, combined with the proposed NDA, would give OPM authority to seek removal of employees who refuse to sign NDAs, with limited appeal rights and through an internal OPM adjudication process rather than the Merit Systems Protection Board. Federal News Network hasreported on these concerns in detail.
More than 11,600 public comments have been submitted to date about the pending rule. The public comment period closes June 26, 2026. Civil Service Strong has published aguide to the proposal and instructions for submitting comments. Employees and advocates who wish to submit comments can do so at Regulations.gov under Docket No. OPM-2026-0100-0004.
NTEU Sues IRS Over Removal of Union Materials From Employee Workspaces
NTEUfiled suit on June 15 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Internal Revenue Service violated employees' First Amendment rights by confiscating and disposing of pro-union flyers, flags, and other materials from their workspaces.
The lawsuit traces the conduct to a May 29 directive from the IRS's acting chief of Facilities Management and Security Services, instructing agency staff to remove all NTEU materials from IRS facilities using whatever steps necessary, and citing compliance with President Trump's 2025 executive order stripping IRS employees of collective bargaining rights on national security grounds. FMSS personnel subsequently moved through IRS offices removing NTEU flags and covering bulletin boards where union materials had been posted.
Neither Trump's anti-union executive orders nor OPM's implementing guidance address the display of union materials in employee workspaces. The executive orders revoked collective bargaining rights. They do not authorize agencies to remove union materials or prohibit employees from displaying them.
NTEU argues that the directive constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, targeting pro-union expression while permitting other workplace decorations. The union further argues that the forward-looking prohibition on posting NTEU materials is a prior restraint, a form of government censorship that federal courts subject to heightened scrutiny. NTEU has represented IRS employees for nearly a century. The case is pending before the district court.
First Circuit to Hear Deferred Resignation Appeal July 28
Oral argument in American Federation of Government Employees v. Ezell is scheduled for Tuesday, July 28, 2026 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The case arises from the Trump administration's January 2025 “Fork in the Road” deferred resignation offer, which gave federal employees the option to receive pay and benefits through September 30, 2025 in exchange for resigning by February 6, 2025. AFGEand other unions challenged the program as unlawful.
The First Circuit's decision will turn in the first instance on whether the unions can establish standing to bring the challenge. If the court reaches the merits, the case raises questions about the legal authority for and procedural requirements governing the deferred resignation program. The MSPB Right Now: Presentation with Raymond Limon on July 8
Raymond Limon, who advises federal employees and practitioners on civil service law through Merit Service Advocates, has published apiece on LinkedIn examining the current state of MSPB judge hiring and what practitioners need to understand about how the Board is staffed and operating.
On Wednesday, July 8, 2026, from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. ET, Mr. Limon will present to Rise Up's volunteer attorneys and interested practitioners on the MSPB as it is currently functioning: what the Board is doing, where its jurisdiction stands, and what options workers have given the current landscape. Volunteer attorneys and interested practitioners who would like to attend should send a message to info@workerslegaldefense.org describing their interest and requesting a link.
Looking Ahead
A hearing in the FEMA reduction-in-force litigation is scheduled for Monday, June 23. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hear both the plaintiffs' FEMA preliminary injunction motion and the government's motion to dismiss in AFGE v. Trump (No. 3:25-cv-03698) at the same proceeding. Discovery in the case has established that senior DHS officials directed a 50% FEMA staffing cut and that key decision-makers communicated about FEMA business on personal devices using Signal with auto-delete settings enabled. The court has issued a preservation order covering more than 20 named individuals and more than two dozen FEMA-related Signal group chats.
We will continue to report on these developments as they unfold.
In Solidarity,
Suzanne Summerlin
General Counsel,
Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network
