Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Lawsuit challenges EO stripping federal workers of collective bargaining rights, (Jul 30, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The complaint argues the EO excludes agencies or agency subdivisions from collective bargaining requirements under the pretense of national security.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and a number of other labor organizations representing federal employees filed suit against the Trump administration challenging Executive Order (EO) No. 14251, “Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Programs.” The EO strips the vast majority of federal workers, excluding police and firefighters, of their collective bargaining rights, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the complaint argues.

Chapter 71. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, codified as Chapter 71 of the United States Code was a central aspect of Congress’s federal civil service reform. Resting on Congress’s explicit finding that the protection of the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions affecting them safeguards the public interests, Chapter 71 forth a comprehensive framework governing collective bargaining in the federal civil service “designed to meet the special requirements and needs of the Government.”

Exclusion from Chapter 71. Congress excluded from the coverage of Chapter 71 some agencies and offices within agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the U.S. Secret Service. Chapter 71 also gives the president narrow authority to exclude additional agencies from the coverage of Chapter 71 if he determines that: (1) the agency or subdivision has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work; and (2) Chapter 71 cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations. Since the adoption of Chapter 71, the complaint argues, no president excluded or sought to exclude any of the plaintiffs’ bargaining units at issue in this case from the protections of Chapter 71, nor has any serious commentator suggested that the application of Chapter 71 to these bargaining units is inconsistent with national security. Additionally, the complaint argues, the plaintiffs have had stable and mutually beneficial collective bargaining relationships with federal agencies for decades without any interference with national security.

The complaint argues that the EO uses the pretext of national security to strip most federal employees of their collective bargaining rights while preserving collective bargaining for police and firefighters. The EO eliminates collective bargaining for about 75 percent of all federal employees represented by unions on national security grounds. The EO directs agency heads to reassign employees performing representational duties pursuant to official-time arrangements in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), terminate pending grievance proceedings, and terminate proceedings before the Federal Labor Relations Authority involving exceptions or arbitral awards or unfair labor practices.

Lack of authority, justification. The complaint argues that the EO is wholly unmoored from the narrow authority that Congress granted the president to exclude agencies or agency subdivisions from Chapter 71. Many of the agencies affected do little to no national security work, much less do they have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work, nor can it reasonably be said that the collective bargaining provisions of Chapter 71 cannot be applied in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations, the complaint argues. Further, with no justification, the EO exempted only a tiny subset of Department of Defense employees from the EO.

Relief sought. The plaintiffs asked the court declare that the EO is ultra vires and violates the Constitution’s separation of executive from legislative powers and that the failure of Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth to suspend application of the EO with respect to the plaintiffs’ bargaining units or to explain that failure violates the APA. The plaintiffs also seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from implementing or otherwise giving effect to the EO and setting aside certification of the EO.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-02445.

News: LitigationNewsTrends PublicEmployees LaborNews Labor Bargaining