Filed Date: July 29, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Executive Order 14251, issued by President Trump on March 27, 2025, revoked collective bargaining rights for the majority of federal workers under the pretext of “national security.” The same day, the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management issued a memorandum to the heads of departments and agencies providing guidance on implementing the Executive Order, including specific determinations of which agencies and subdivisions were to be excluded from the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), also known as Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. This case challenges Executive Order 14251.
On July 29, 2025, the plaintiffs—several labor organizations, including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)—filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against President Trump, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ actions violated the Separation of Powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, the First and Fifth Amendments, and exceeded the President’s authority. The complaint also noted three other lawsuits challenging Executive Order 14251 already pending in the same court: National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, No. 25-cv-00935-PLF; American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, No. 25-cv-1030-PLF; and Federal Education Association v. Trump, No. 25-cv-01362-PLF. The case was assigned to Judge Paul L. Friedman.
The plaintiffs asserted that federal civilian workers had enjoyed the right to collectively bargain since the 1960s, a right codified in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. They emphasized that the President’s authority to exclude federal agencies from this framework was narrowly defined, requiring the agency’s primary function to be “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.” According to the plaintiffs, many of the federal agencies and subdivisions affected by the executive order—such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of the Treasury—did not meet this standard.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Executive Order carved out a blanket exception for police officers, security guards, and firefighters, preserving their collective bargaining rights. They claimed this distinction was politically motivated, citing a White House “Fact Sheet” that described “hostile Federal unions,” emphasized President Trump’s support from the National Fraternal Order of Police, and asserted that union activities impaired agency functioning and could undermine national security by impeding the removal of employees for poor performance or misconduct. The plaintiffs contended the Executive Order violated the First Amendment by retaliating against protected speech and petitioning activities and violated the Fifth Amendment by nullifying collective bargaining agreements, which they described as protected property interests, denying them equal protection by favoring police and firefighters, and depriving them of procedural due process by taking away their property interests without notice or a hearing.
Represented by public counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief as well as a preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to prohibit the defendants from implementing the Executive Order and the OPM Guidance. The plaintiffs argued that the Executive Order caused and would continue to cause irreparable harm, including agencies unilaterally halting grievance processing and stopping the transmission of union dues—actions that cut off union revenue and deprived workers of vital protections.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Victoria Tan (8/14/2025)
National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
American Foreign Service Association v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
Federal Education Association v. Trump, District of District of Columbia (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70951028/parties/american-federation-of-labor-and-congress-of-industrial-organizations-v/
Friedman, Paul L. (District of Columbia)
McFadden, Trevor Neil (District of Columbia)
Bolek, Keith R. (District of Columbia)
Ginsburg, Matthew (District of Columbia)
Kronland, Scott A. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70951028/american-federation-of-labor-and-congress-of-industrial-organizations-v/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 11:52 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Appointments/Civil Service)
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 29, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Several labor organizations, including: the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE); National Federation of Federal Employees, IAMAW (NFFE); National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO (NATCA); International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO (IFPTE); Federal Education Association (FEA); American Foreign Service Association (AFSA); and National Association of Immigration Judges, AFJ-CIO (NAIJ).
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
United States (- United States (national) -), Federal
Office of Personnel Management (- United States (national) -), Federal
Environmental Protection Agency (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Defense (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Area:
Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: