Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Court temporarily blocks use of federal service hiring question asking applicants about Trump priorities, (Sep 14, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

According to one source, at least 70,000 job postings have already included the “loyalty question” at issue; the court’s decision will not prohibit consideration of responses already submitted.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily halted the government's use of a question included in federal job applications that asks candidates how they would help advance President Donald Trump's executive orders and policy priorities, finding that the plaintiffs—a group of labor unions—are likely to succeed in showing the requirement violates federal law and the First Amendment.

At the end of last week, the court granted in part a request to suspend use of the question while litigation continues. While it granted a stay under Section 705 of the APA, it declined to issue a broader preliminary injunction that would have barred agencies from considering responses already collected.

Loyalty question. At the center of the dispute is one of four essay questions created as a result of President Trump's January 2025 executive order on federal hiring reform. The question was included in the “Merit Hiring Plan” issued by OPM in May 2025. The challenged question asks: “How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

In November, the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the National Association of Government Employees filed the lawsuit challenging the new “loyalty question.”

70,000 postings already. The unions argue the question functions as a political loyalty test for career civil service positions and improperly injects political considerations into hiring decisions that are supposed to be based on merit. According to court filings, the question has appeared in thousands of vacancy announcements for federal positions graded GS-5 and above. Democracy Forward, which is representing the unions, contends that over 70,000 federal job postings already have included the loyalty question.

The court agreed that the unions had made a sufficient preliminary showing to justify temporary relief. Applying the standards governing stays under the Administrative Procedure Act, the judge concluded that the unions were likely to prevail on their claim that the hiring question is contrary to constitutional protections and therefore unlawful agency action.

Standing. A central hurdle, which the court concluded was met, was whether the unions had standing to challenge the policy. The court found that they likely did. One union member who works for the Department of Veterans Affairs, identified in the litigation as "Federal Worker 4,” applied for multiple federal jobs and encountered the question in several applications. She stated that she did not want to discuss politics at work and disagreed with many of the administration's policies but nonetheless answered the question because she feared that declining to do so, or providing an unfavorable response, could harm her chances of obtaining a position.

Risk of harm. The court emphasized that constitutional harm can arise from being compelled to disclose or conform one's political beliefs, even before any hiring decision is made. It also rejected the government's argument that the challenge must proceed through the Civil Service Reform Act's administrative review process. Because the unions were challenging the legality of the question itself rather than a specific personnel action, the court explained that judicial review was available.

Likelihood of success. In granting temporary relief, the judge concluded that the unions had shown a likelihood of success on the merits, a risk of irreparable constitutional harm, and that the balance of equities favored suspending use of the question. The court therefore stayed implementation of the essay prompt while the litigation proceeds. However, it declined to grant broader relief preventing agencies from considering responses that had already been submitted.

“Requiring federal job applicants to answer politically motivated questions goes against the very nature of the nonpartisan civil service,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley, “and we are pleased the judge has put an immediate stop to the administration’s loyalty questions. Federal employees should be hired based solely on their ability to perform the job—not their allegiance to any particular administration.”

The case is No. 1:25-cv-13305.

News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews PublicEmployees IndividualRights WhiteHouseNews LaborNews