Filed Date: Jan. 28, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the Trump Administration's policy of politically motivated hiring and firing of career civil servants. On January 28, 2025, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. PEER sued President Donald J. Trump and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. PEER sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that Executive Order (EO) 14171 was unlawful and exceeded President Trump's authority. In their amended complaint filed on March 12, 2025, the plaintiffs also challenged the Jan. 27 OPM Memorandum. The amended lawsuit contended the EO and OPM Memo aimed to strip civil service protections from career federal employees, effectively reinstating a patronage-based system of hiring and firing. The case was assigned to Judge Paula Xinis.
At issue was Executive Order 13957, originally issued by President Trump in October 2020, which created a new category of federal employment called "Schedule F." This classification sought to remove due process protections from thousands of career civil servants in "policy-influencing positions," making them at-will employees. The Biden administration rescinded the order. Upon returning to office, however, Trump issued a nearly identical executive order, EO 14171, titled Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce on January 20, 2025. The order revived Schedule F, now renamed "Schedule Policy/Career," which allowed the president to reclassify career civil servants as at-will employees, exempting them from due process protections, hiring regulations, and job security measures. The EO claimed that certain federal employees in policymaking roles must be "accountable" to the president, but critics argued that it allowed mass firings of nonpartisan career officials. Also at issue was the OPM Memorandum which directed agencies to designate employees under Schedule F status.
PEER's complaint alleged that EO 14171 violated the Civil Service Reform Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth Amendment due process rights of federal employees. The lawsuit argued that the EO unlawfully bypassed statutory requirements by nullifying existing OPM regulations without undergoing the required notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Additionally, it violated Congress’s statutory limitation on the president’s authority to exclude employees from the competitive service. Further, it stripped employees of their vested rights without due process. The plaintiffs contended that the executive action unlawfully overrode long-standing civil service protections designed to prevent politically motivated hiring and firing. Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the OPM memorandum violated the APA for unlawfully directing agencies to act in violation of the law by conforming with the EO and for failing to follow notice and comment procedure.
PEER sought multiple forms of relief, including: (1) A declaration that the Executive Order was ultra vires (beyond presidential authority) and in violation of federal statutes and the Fifth Amendment; (2) An injunction barring the federal government from implementing or enforcing the EO; (3) a declaration that the OMP Memorandum violated the APA; (4) A court order requiring OPM to continue enforcing regulations protecting career civil servants; and (5) an order vacating the OPM memo.
Summary Authors
Jillian Snyman (3/19/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69586644/parties/public-employees-for-environmental-responsibility-v-trump/
Friedl, Kevin E. (Maryland)
Goldstein, Elena (Maryland)
Martinez, Michael (Maryland)
Nugent, Victoria S (Maryland)
Samburg, Mark B (Maryland)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69586644/public-employees-for-environmental-responsibility-v-trump/
Last updated March 19, 2025, 8:49 a.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 28, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A nonprofit, non-partisan organization, providing direct services to environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Office of Personnel Management, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: