The Solidarity Docket
February 19, 2026
This week's docket covers a significant escalation across multiple fronts: the expiration of RIF moratorium protections, OPM's directive to terminate union contracts notwithstanding active court orders, a new mass lawsuit challenging politically motivated terminations, a partial DHS shutdown, ongoing FEMA litigation, and the Education Department's continued dismantling in apparent defiance of congressional appropriations law.
RIF Protections Have Expired, Schedule P-C Looms
The congressional prohibition on reductions in force, which had been in place during and following the government shutdown, has now expired. No current law bars agencies from initiating RIFs.
Looking ahead, the implementation of Schedule P-C (the administration's revived version of Schedule F) is expected to move forward in early March. Employees reclassified into Schedule P-C positions will lose standard civil service protections, including the right to appeal adverse actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This means they could be terminated without the procedural requirements that govern ordinary RIFs, and without the individual due process protections that career civil servants currently hold.
The dual threats of RIF protections expiring and the implementation of Schedule P-C creates compounding risk for affected workers.
Workers uncertain about their classification or appeal rights should seek legal consultation promptly. Information about legal resources is available at workerslegaldefense.org.
Federal Employees Sue Over RIFs Used to Circumvent Due Process
On February 17, Lawyers for Good Government, the DC Law Collective, and Sligo Law Group filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of more than 140 career federal employees. The plaintiffs were drawn from the Departments of Justice, State, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and USAID. They allege that the administration conducted politically motivated terminations while labeling them reductions in force in order to deny workers their constitutional right to be heard.
The complaint raises several distinct legal theories. First, it argues that the administration publicly accused employees of wrongdoing, characterizing them as "internal adversaries" and alleging illegal conduct, while simultaneously denying them any hearing or opportunity to respond. When a government employer stigmatizes an employee in ways that damage their ability to find future work, the Constitution requires a name-clearing hearing. The complaint contends that conducting these terminations under the RIF label effectively stripped workers of that right.
Second, the lawsuit alleges that the MSPB appeals process has been rendered functionally meaningless. President Trump fired MSPB Chair Cathy Harris and asserted executive control over the Board's decision-making. The administration has proposed cutting the MSPB's budget even as it has flooded the agency with appeals. Federal workers have filed more than 18,750 appeals in eight months, nearly four times the number the Board resolved in all of fiscal year 2024.
Plaintiffs seek reinstatement with back pay and benefits, a declaration that the RIFs violated due process, and damages under the Privacy Act for reliance on inaccurate personnel records. If successful, the ruling could affect thousands of workers currently trapped in the MSPB backlog with the same fact pattern.
Read the full complaint here.
OPM Directs Agencies to Terminate Union Contracts Despite Active Court Orders
On February 13, OPM Director Scott Kupor issued a memo directing agencies to proceed with terminating collective bargaining agreements, in implementation of the administration's 2025 executive orders that stripped more than one million federal workers of bargaining rights on national security grounds. Agencies are instructed to notify affected unions and submit monthly compliance reports until all termination actions are complete.
The directive came as multiple lawsuits challenging the underlying executive orders remain pending in federal court, with injunctions in place at some agencies. Unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees are arguing that the memo constitutes unlawful defiance of those orders. OPM's spokesperson denied that the memo instructed agencies to defy courts, without providing data on how many agencies had previously refrained from terminating CBAs due to injunctions.
In a filing to the D.C. Circuit, the National Treasury Employees Union argued that the memo fundamentally changed the legal landscape: where harm from the executive orders had previously appeared speculative because some agencies had held off on terminating contracts, the OPM directive now makes that harm "certain and imminent." NTEU has asked the court to act accordingly.
In practical terms, agencies that terminate CBAs will stop deducting union dues from paychecks and will cease applying negotiated contract terms to covered employees. Workers in affected bargaining units should monitor communications from their unions closely. The fate of existing agreements will be determined in large part by how courts respond to motions now pending.
GovExec report here.
DHS Shut Down as Negotiations Continue with Congress Out of Town
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security lapsed on February 14 after Congress failed to pass a funding bill before its recess. OMB instructed DHS to begin orderly shutdown procedures, with employees reporting for their next scheduled tour of duty to undertake those activities.
The shutdown affects DHS and its components including the Coast Guard, FEMA, and the Transportation Security Administration. While the eleven other FY 2026 appropriations bills have already been signed into law. OMB has noted that immigration enforcement and border security operations retain separate funding.
According to DHS contingency planning, approximately 249,000 of roughly 272,000 employees were classified as excepted or exempt, meaning approximately 23,000 are furloughed, with a further 1,700 at risk if the shutdown extends into next week.
The pay picture for furloughed workers remains uncertain. OPM has updated its shutdown furlough guidance to no longer guarantee back pay; it now states only that furloughed employees will receive payment for the lapse period when Congress specifically appropriates funds for that purpose. OMB takes the same position. Congress did authorize back pay following the most recent shutdown, but no such authorization is currently in place for this one.
Coast Guard leadership has warned that a lapse of more than a few days will halt pay for approximately 56,000 active duty, reserve, and civilian personnel. Congress is not in session.
Federal News Network coverage here.
Looking Ahead
D.C. Circuit oral argument in NTEU v. Vought (CFPB en banc) will be held on February 24. A decision could have broad implications for agency independence and judicial review of workforce actions. Our Litigation Tracker is updated regularly with case filings and developments.
In Solidarity,
Suzanne Summerlin
General Counsel Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network
