The Solidarity Docket
Week of May 15, 2026
This week's Docket steps back from individual case updates to take stock of where federal workforce litigation stands overall. Litigation challenging the administration's workforce agenda has been underway for more than a year across dozens of federal courts. Some cases have produced durable protections. Others have stalled or been reversed. A number of important questions remain unresolved and are working their way toward decisions that will shape the legal landscape for months to come. Here is where things stand.
The Collective Bargaining Executive Orders: Waiting on the D.C. Circuit
In March 2025, the administration issued Executive Order 14251, invoking the national security exemption in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute to strip collective bargaining rights from workers at dozens of agencies. The order affected more than a million federal workers and triggered immediate litigation in federal courts across the country.
The central legal question -- whether the administration can eliminate collective bargaining rights through executive order, and whether federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to that action -- has now been fully briefed and argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A three-judge panel heard argument on December 15, 2025 in three consolidated cases brought by the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Foreign Service Association, and the Federal Education Association. The panel ordered supplemental briefing on jurisdictional issues, which was completed in January. The case has been pending since then. The panel's decision, when it comes, will be the most consequential ruling on federal labor rights in this litigation cycle.
While the D.C. Circuit deliberates, a cluster of related cases at the district court level -- including suits by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and the National Association of Agriculture Employees -- have been stayed or held in abeyance. The district courts are waiting for the same thing everyone else is waiting for.
In the Ninth Circuit, the picture is less favorable. A three-judge panel vacated the preliminary injunction protecting collective bargaining rights at more than two dozen agencies in February 2026, ruling that AFGE had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on its First Amendment retaliation theory on the current record. Critically, the panel also held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear these challenges -- a significant and durable ruling that the government had contested. AFGE sought additional time to petition for rehearing en banc; that deadline passed May 13, and the status of any petition is not yet confirmed. The merits of the case continue at the district court level.
VA Contract Reinstatement: What Is Currently Protected
Two federal courts in Rhode Island have issued preliminary injunctions requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs to reinstate collective bargaining agreements the agency terminated in 2025. In March, the court in AFGE v. Department of Veterans Affairs ordered reinstatement of the Master CBA covering more than 300,000 VA employees. When the government re-terminated that agreement in late March, the court found the action noncompliant with its order and issued an enforcement order requiring reinstatement. The government appealed to the First Circuit, which will now consider whether to stay or affirm the injunction. In a parallel case brought by a coalition of other VA unions including National Nurses United, the same court issued a second preliminary injunction on March 27, requiring reinstatement of those unions' CBAs as well.
These injunctions are in place now, but they are preliminary. The First Circuit appeal could alter that. Federal workers covered by VA CBAs should be aware that the legal status of those agreements may continue to shift.
In Connecticut, the National Council of Prison Locals won an important early ruling in its case challenging the Bureau of Prisons' termination of its collective bargaining agreement. The district court denied BOP's motion to dismiss and its motion to transfer the case on April 28. A hearing on the union's preliminary injunction motion was held April 30. The court ordered BOP to produce its administrative record by May 13, and a scheduling conference is set for June 24.
Individual Employee Cases: The MSPB Jurisdiction Problem
One of the most consequential and unresolved questions in individual termination cases is jurisdictional: when a federal employee is fired, must they pursue their claims exclusively through the Merit Systems Protection Board and the administrative process established by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), or can they go directly to federal district court?
The government has argued consistently that the CSRA channels all such claims away from district courts, leaving employees with the MSPB as their only avenue. Several courts have now pushed back.
In April, the Southern District of New York denied the government's motion to dismiss in Comey v. Department of Justice, a case brought by fired AUSA Maurene Comey, holding that the federal question statute gives the district court jurisdiction. In the Eastern District of Virginia, the court in Comans v. Executive Office of the President partially denied the government's motion to dismiss, allowing the surviving constitutional claims to proceed while dismissing counts seeking monetary relief.
The Federal Circuit is now considering the jurisdictional and constitutional questions in a more direct form.
Two fired immigration judges -- Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch -- were told by the MSPB that their terminations were lawful under the president's constitutional authority. They petitioned the Federal Circuit for en banc review. Their petition attracted amicus briefs from AFGE, AFSCME, the International Association of Machinists, IFPTE, NFFE, six United States Senators, the MSPB Professional Association, and Whistleblower Aid. The government filed its response on May 1. The petition is fully briefed and pending.
In the District of Columbia, the case of Gordon v. Executive Office of the President -- filed by three fired career DOJ employees -- remains pending on the government's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed supplemental authority notices pointing the court to recent decisions in related cases. The motion has been pending since late January.
FLRA Rulemaking: A New Challenge
A coalition of federal employee unions filed suit in the District of Massachusetts on April 15 challenging a Federal Labor Relations Authority interim final rule that grants politically appointed board members authority over union election proceedings. The unions moved for expedited summary judgment. Cross-motions for summary judgment are now fully briefed and a hearing has been scheduled. This case is distinct from the collective bargaining EO litigation; it targets the FLRA's rulemaking authority and the structural independence of its adjudicative functions.
The FLRA's interim final rule and related rulemaking has been covered in prior issues of this Docket and continues to be an active area of concern.
New Fronts: Merit Hiring and the Establishment Clause
Two cases flag emerging legal theories that go beyond the core EO and RIF litigation.
In Massachusetts, AFGE's challenge to OPM's “Merit Hiring Plan” -- which includes a question asking job applicants to explain how they would advance the president's executive orders -- is pending on a preliminary injunction motion argued in March. Plaintiffs filed supplemental factual materials in late April; the government responded in early May. The motion remains under advisement.
On Tuesday of this week, NFFE and six individual USDA employees filed a new lawsuit in the Northern District of California alleging that Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by sending a series of proselytizing Christian messages to all USDA employees from her official email account. The complaint focuses primarily on an April 5 Easter email sent to the agency's roughly 100,000 employees. Plaintiffs also bring an APA claim, arguing that the Secretary's practice departed without explanation from existing agency guidance prohibiting supervisors from using their official authority to pressure employees on matters of religious belief. An initial case management conference is set for August 13.
Closing
The D.C. Circuit's forthcoming decision in the consolidated NTEU, AFSA, and FEA cases is the most significant pending ruling in federal workforce litigation. It will define the legal framework for most of the downstream cases currently waiting in the district courts.
The First Circuit's handling of the VA CBA appeals will determine whether existing protections for VA workers remain in place. And the Federal Circuit's consideration of the immigration judge case may clarify the outer limits of MSPB jurisdiction and presidential removal power.
We will continue to track all of these cases through our litigation tracker at https://workerslegaldefense.org/litigation-tracker
In Solidarity,
Suzanne Summerlin
General Counsel
Rise Up: Federal Workers Legal Defense Network
