The Executive Order challenged in a recent court decision overturning an injunction of the Order is entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.
The labor relations exclusions in the Executive Order signed by President Trump on March 27, 2025, modified Executive Order 12171 of November 19, 1979 signed by President Jimmy Carter. The Carter Executive Order was entitled Exclusions from the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program. The new Order from President Trump significantly expanded the labor relations exclusions of the Carter Order.
The Trump Order targeted unions representing employees in larger federal agencies.
The Executive Order cited restrictions in these agencies for exclusion from coverage by the federal labor relations statute because they “are hereby determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work. It is also hereby determined that Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, cannot be applied to these agencies and agency subdivisions in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.”
- Department of State
- Department of Defense, except for any subdivisions excluded pursuant to section 4 of the Executive Order of March 27, 2025, entitled ‘Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs’
- Department of the Treasury, except the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
- Department of Veterans Affairs
- Department of Justice
- International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
- Environmental Protection Agency
- United States Agency for International Development
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- National Science Foundation
- United States International Trade Commission
- Federal Communications Commission
- General Services Administration
The Order also excluded major portions of the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Homeland Security, FEMA, most of the Department of Energy, and major portions of the Department of Agriculture.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed an appeal with a district court in the District of Columbia. The union asserted it would suffer irreparable harm if the court did not issue a preliminary injunction banning implementation of the Executive Order. A district court granted its request.
A federal appeals court has now allowed the Trump administration to proceed with an executive order stripping collective bargaining rights from approximately 104,000 federal workers, overturning a lower court’s injunction. The 2-1 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals centers on conflicting interpretations of irreparable harm and presidential authority over national security agencies.
A federal judge had blocked the Executive Order as part of the NTEU lawsuit. That block was lifted Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Appeals Court for the DC Circuit ruled that the federal government met the requirements for a stay of the initial order.
Key Arguments in This Case
In this case, the Trump administration argued:
- The 2025 executive order exempts agencies with national security functions (e.g., Justice Department, EPA, CDC) from union bargaining requirements under the federal labor relations statute. The government cited congressional recognition of presidential discretion when making decisions in this area.
- Maintaining the district court’s injunction would cause irreparable harm by restricting the president’s ability to adapt national security policies and implement preparatory measures, such as revising agency guidance.
- Financial losses from paused union dues collection were reparable through future damages or voluntary member payments.
In this appeal, the union contended:
- The Order unlawfully revoked decades-old labor protections for 65.9% of its members, risking reputational harm and reduced membership if bargaining power eroded.
- Agencies were already circumventing union contracts by halting grievance hearings and dues deductions, despite official guidance delaying formal terminations of policies and orders.
Decision of the Court
The majority of the judges on this case reached these conclusions in canceling the injunction:
1. Irreparable Harm Was Not Proven: NTEU’s alleged harms were speculative since agencies were instructed to delay formal contract terminations. Financial losses could be remedied post-litigation.
2. Presidential Authority Was Improperly Restrained: The injunction improperly constrained executive flexibility in national security matters, an area where courts traditionally defer to the president.
3. There is a Public Interest for Presidential Discretion: Upholding congressional intent to grant the president discretion in national security outweighed preserving collective bargaining during litigation.
One judge dissented from the majority. This judge criticized the majority for accepting the administration’s “vague assertions” of harm while ignoring contradictions:
- The government voluntarily paused the order’s implementation, undermining claims that the injunction caused injury.
- No evidence showed that maintaining the status quo (collective bargaining since the 1970s) would disrupt national security during the appeals process.
Implications of Latest Court Decision
The stay permits agencies to continue taking steps to implement the Order while the appeal proceeds. If it is upheld, the policy decision would mark the largest revocation of federal worker union rights in U.S. history, potentially affecting ~750,000 employees.
The NTEU has not yet announced whether it will seek further review. Federal employee unions have filed lawsuits against most of the Trump executive orders impacting federal employees, some of which have resulted in removing people from federal employment. This has cut back on the amount of union dues being paid. The actions are having a financial impact on the unions, which may limit their automatic aggressive challenges against new policies being implemented or proposed by the administration.
The union has not stated whether it will appeal the recent decision. It is likely that it will do so, probably requesting a decision from the full court to review the initial ruling of this Court of Appeals.
Federal employee unions rarely challenged actions taken by the government under President Obama or Biden. In part, this was due to these administrations making decisions favoring union positions.
Also, unions routinely donate their time, money, and political support for Democrats running for office, despite restrictions against federal employees becoming heavily involved in political activity. Republicans may see unions as part of a “deep state” structure that protects Democrats and tries to keep one political party in power over the other.
Federal employee unions have argued against this Executive Order as “union-busting,” arguing it silences federal workers and sets a precedent for more restrictions against unions.
Unions also view the Executive Order as an attempt to weaken the collective power of federal unions and diminish their ability to challenge executive actions in court.
A number of decisions are now pending in the legal system as unions have routinely filed challenges in judicial districts around the country on a variety of actions by the administration. Most of these cases, or at least the central issues in these cases, are likely to eventually go before the U.S. Supreme Court or being resolved by the Supreme Court in decisions that may impact a number of pending cases.
Actions taken by the Trump administration are having a major impact on the federal civil service system. Even if the actions are approved through the court system, Congress will have to become involved in passing legislation for many of the changes to last.
As we have seen in actions taken by President Trump in his first administration, actions then taken by President Biden overturning some of these decisions, and then reinstatement of positions by President Trump in his second term, executive orders can be overturned. It is much harder to overturn laws that have been passed.
