November 11, 2026
This week's Docket leads with the court order blocking USDA relocations (again). It also covers a new ruling that Article II removals belong in district court, the Fourth Circuit's refusal to rehear its decision for fired intelligence officers, the dismissal of a USAID reduction in force suit, the push for a 2027 pay raise, and several shorter developments.
USDA Relocation Order Stays in Place as GAO Faults the Planning
The order blocking USDA employee relocations remains in effect. On November 5 the federal district court in San Francisco denied USDA's request to stay the order in AFGE v. USDA while the government appeals. The court directed USDA and the plaintiffs to confer on a stipulated clarification of the order's scope, and said it would consider only a very narrow motion to clarify or modify it. USDA had argued the order hinders hiring and operations. AFGE, AFSCME, NFFE, NTEU, five local governments, and five nonprofits responded that USDA waited more than two weeks to seek a stay and misreads the order as barring voluntary moves unrelated to the reorganization.
On November 9 the Government Accountability Office reported that USDA did not provide the analysis behind its July 2025 reorganization decisions, despite requests over nearly a year. GAO said Congress and the public cannot tell how USDA weighed service delivery, economic effects, or property disposal. The Secretary of Agriculture called the report a politicized review. GAO stands by it.
USDA's opening brief in the Ninth Circuit is due November 13. The appropriations provisions underlying the court's order expire with the continuing resolution on December 11.
D.C. Circuit Rejects Channeling in Voice of America Director’s Case
The D.C. Circuit held on November 10 that the Director of Voice of America may challenge his removal in district court and need not go to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The decision in Abramowitz v. Lake affirms a permanent injunction barring the U.S. Agency for Global Media from removing Michael Abramowitz without the approval of the International Broadcasting Advisory Board, as a 2021 statute requires.
The government argued that the Civil Service Reform Act channels the claim to the Board. The court disagreed. It reasoned that Congress enacted the 2021 statute to protect the networks’ journalistic independence, and that the Board cannot grant the immediate relief needed to make that protection work. The court also held that the statute is consistent with Article II.
The holding rests on that specific statute, and the court repeated that the Act channels almost all federal employment claims.
The same court has not yet decided NTEU v. Trump and two related cases (AFSA and FEA), argued December 15, 2025, which ask whether unions challenging Executive Order 14251 must first go to the FLRA. A different panel heard those cases. The panel that decided Abramowitz also heard AFGE v. Trump, the challenge by AFSA and AFGE to the dismantling of USAID, which remains pending.
Another Court Holds Article II Removals Belong in District Court
A federal district court in Maryland will hear Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo's challenge to her removal as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. On November 2 the court denied the government's motion to dismiss Marrazzo v. Kennedy for lack of jurisdiction.
The government argued that the Civil Service Reform Act sends her claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court disagreed. It held that the Act channels removals taken "for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service," and the Secretary of Health and Human Services gave a different basis. His September 2025 termination letter relied only on Article II of the Constitution and the statute authorizing him to appoint institute directors. A removal on those grounds falls outside the Act, so the district court has jurisdiction. The court followed the reasoning of the rulings for Maurene Comey and Mary Comans. Marrazzo alleges she was removed after objecting internally to research and vaccine policy changes and filing a whistleblower complaint.
The same question is now before the district court in Washington, D.C. On November 3 the Department of Justice moved to dismiss former Pardon Attorney Elizabeth Oyer's suit, Oyer v. Blanche, arguing that the Act channels her claims to the Board and that an Article II removal is not subject to judicial review.
Fourth Circuit Lets Ruling for Fired Intelligence Officers Stand
Nineteen career intelligence officers keep the court order protecting them from termination. On November 3 the Fourth Circuit denied a petition by the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to rehear Doe 1 v. ODNI before the full court. Fourteen judges voted to deny rehearing and one voted to grant it.
The officers were terminated in 2025 when the agencies closed their diversity, equity, and inclusion offices under Executive Order 14151. The panel opinion, issued in July, affirmed a preliminary injunction barring the CIA from carrying out the terminations without court authorization. It held that the agencies' own termination regulation entitled the officers to two procedures they were denied: consideration for reassignment and an internal appeal. The opinion does not recognize a right to continued employment.
A judge concurring in the denial wrote that the circumstances are unlikely to recur, in part because the agencies have since rewritten the regulation to remove both procedures when employees are terminated as excess personnel. The dissenting judge wrote that the ruling intrudes on the CIA Director's discretion over national security personnel.
The government may still ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
USAID Employees' Suit Dismissed, but 120-Day Rule Holds
Three former USAID employees who lost their jobs in the agency's reduction in force will not get relief from the federal district court in Washington, D.C. On November 6 the court dismissed Greene v. USAID, brought by employees of USAID's diversity office who alleged discrimination, political retaliation, and a sham RIF.
One part of the ruling favors employees. The plaintiffs filed a mixed case appeal, a challenge to a removal that also alleges discrimination, with the Merit Systems Protection Board in May 2025. The Board did not decide it within 120 days. The court held that the delay allowed them to sue in district court under 5 U.S.C. 7702, and it rejected the government's argument that their Board appeal was not specific enough.
The claims then failed. The court held that the Civil Service Reform Act bars district court review of the Administrative Leave Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and ultra vires claims. It dismissed the remaining claims, including those under Title VII, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause, as inadequately pleaded. The court reasoned that the complaint's account of an agency-wide mass termination contradicts the allegation that the plaintiffs were singled out.
The plaintiffs may appeal until January 5, 2027.
Federal Pay Raise on the Table in Year-End Funding Talks
A 2027 pay raise for federal employees may be negotiated as part of the deal to keep the government funded past December 11. Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) said on November 5 that he will push to include a raise in any year-end funding agreement, Government Executive reports. His starting point is the 4.1 percent average increase in his Federal Adjustment of Income Rates Act. He said he would accept less, and that 3 percent "would be a huge improvement over 0%."
The President formally proposed in August to freeze pay for most civilian federal employees in 2027. Without action by Congress, the freeze takes effect. Congress has overridden a proposed freeze before. In February 2019 it included a 1.9 percent raise in the legislation that ended a 35-day partial shutdown. If a raise is not part of the December agreement, Walkinshaw said the issue will return when the next funding measure expires in 2027.
He also said he sees a path to restoring collective bargaining rights for more than one million federal employees, most likely after the new Congress convenes in January. The House has passed legislation to reverse the executive orders excluding agencies from the Statute. Senate passage would require 60 votes.
Other Developments
GSA daily work reports. The General Services Administration now requires employees of its Technology Transformation Services to email a daily update by 6 p.m. listing what they worked on, what they plan to do next, and anything slowing their progress, Government Executive reports. An email from a senior GSA official warns that failure to comply may result in adverse action.
NFFE v. USDA. In NFFE's challenge to the Secretary of Agriculture's religious messages to the workforce, the parties dispute whether USDA must still produce the administrative record the court ordered on October 20. USDA asked for clarification on November 6, citing a tentative ruling that the plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act claims fail. NFFE and the employee plaintiffs responded that a tentative ruling does not lift the order. The preliminary injunction motion and the motion to dismiss remain under submission.
OPM and DOGE data access. The court set a schedule on November 6 for deciding relief in AFGE v. OPM. AFGE, the Association of Administrative Law Judges, and IFPTE will move for a permanent injunction by December 4. The government's opposition is due January 15, 2027, and the reply January 29.
TSA contract appeal. The government filed its opening brief on November 9 in its Ninth Circuit appeal of the injunction preserving the 2024 collective bargaining agreement between TSA and AFGE. AFGE's brief is due December 21. The injunction remains in effect.
Executive Order 14251. The government moved on November 6 to dismiss AFGE v. Trump, the challenge to the exclusion order brought by AFGE, AFSCME, NAGE, NFFE, National Nurses United, and SEIU. The unions' response is due November 20, and the court set a hearing for December 17.
Defense Department contracts. AFGE and NFFE locals filed their reply in support of a preliminary injunction on November 3 in AFGE Local 1410 v. Department of Defense, and opposed the Department's motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay the case. No relief has been granted.
Voice of America. The plaintiffs in Widakuswara v. Lake and Abramowitz v. Lake told the court on November 9 that the cases are not moot, because broadcasting remains near its March 2025 shutdown level. The Widakuswara plaintiffs, who include AFGE, AFSCME, AFSA, and The NewsGuild-CWA, also asked the court to order the U.S. Agency for Global Media to produce, within 90 days, a broadcasting plan that complies with the International Broadcasting Act. The government opposes.
Schedule Policy/Career. The government filed its reply on November 6 in Government Accountability Project v. OPM, completing briefing on its motion to dismiss the challenge brought by the Government Accountability Project and NARFE. It also opposed the plaintiffs' request to identify seven career employee declarants by pseudonym.
Former FEMA Chief Financial Officer. The district court has deferred Mary Comans's motion for a remedy for the loss of her position until the Fourth Circuit rules on her motion to dismiss the government's appeal as premature. The remedies hearing listed here last week for November 6 did not go forward.
Dates We're Watching
November 12: BOP's response to the unions' motion to file a supplemental complaint in NCPL v. Bureau of Prisons.
November 13: Government's opening brief in the USDA relocation appeal, AFGE v. USDA.
November 13: FMCS cross-motion for summary judgment in AFGE v. FMCS.
November 13: Joint statement on relief and fee application in the FEMA claims in AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.).
November 16: EEOC's response to the motion to compel discovery in AFGE v. EEOC.
November 19: Status conference on discovery in the challenge to Executive Order 14251, AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03070 (N.D. Cal.).
November 20: Case management conference in the FEMA claims in AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03698 (N.D. Cal.).
November 20: Maurene Comey's response on her First Amendment claim in Comey v. Department of Justice. The government's response is due December 1.
November 23: VA's opening brief in the First Circuit appeal of AFGE Local 2305 v. Department of Veterans Affairs.
December 1: Hearing on the states' discovery motion in the HHS restructuring case, New York v. Kennedy.
December 4: Plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction in AFGE v. OPM (DOGE data access).
December 10: En banc argument on the removal of immigration judges in Jackler v. MSPB.
December 11: The continuing resolution funding most of the government expires.
December 17: Hearing on the government's motion to dismiss the challenge to Executive Order 14251, AFGE v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-03070 (N.D. Cal.).
Upcoming Webinar: Reasonable Accommodation Requests
Wednesday, November 18 at 12:30 pm ET. AFGE attorney Julia Dykstra and I, Rise Up General Counsel Suzanne Summerlin, will facilitate a discussion of reasonable accommodation requests geared toward pro se federal workers but open to all: RSVP here.
Follow these and other cases on the Rise Up Litigation Tracker, which is updated weekly and available to search or download as a PDF or spreadsheet.
In Solidarity,
Suzanne Summerlin
General Counsel
Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network
