DC Court of Appeals Ruling Interpreted by DC Circuit Court
On May 17th, FedSmith published an article noting the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a stay by a lower court that allowed the administration to proceed taking steps for implementing an executive order expanding exclusions from the federal labor relations program.
The focus of the case is an executive order issued by President Trump on March 27, 2025, entitled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs.
The 2-1 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals highlighted conflicting interpretations of irreparable harm and presidential authority over national security agencies. The Appeals Court concluded the federal government met the requirements for a stay of the initial order that the district court had issued.
In the latest wrinkle, the DC circuit court issued a new “Memorandum Opinion and Order” that addresses the decision by the Court of Appeals.
In this new decision, the DC District Court Judge Paul Friedman wrote: “NTEU has presented substantial evidence reflecting that certain agencies and subdivisions are disregarding provisions in the respective collective bargaining agreements, ‘notwithstanding the lack of the formal cancellation of the collective bargaining agreements.’ “
Judge Friedman appears to have been spurred to action by the Court of Appeals approving the government’s request for a stay of a preliminary injunction which this judge had previously issued. The district court judge included examples of how various collective bargaining agreements were disregarded “notwithstanding the lack of formal cancellation” of these agreements.
It its decision, the Court of Appeals reached these conclusions:
- The Government is likely to prevail in its appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm while the case is pending. The Union says it will suffer two irreparable harms. Neither qualifies.
- “Because the district court’s preliminary injunction is likely to be vacated for lack of irreparable harm, we need not address the Government’s arguments regarding the Union’s likelihood of success on the merits.”
- The district court’s preliminary injunction inflicts irreparable harm on the President by impeding his national-security prerogatives, which Congress explicitly recognized.
To show his latest decision is consistent with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals issuance of a stay of a preliminary injunction, and not a direct rebuttal of the Court of Appeals, Judge Friedman wrote:
Given the Circuit’s clarification that NTEU could “seek injunctive relief” if “a
specific agency or subagency deviates from [its] self-imposed rule,” …the Court will instruct the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report apprising the
Court of proposed next steps for this litigation….While NTEU may not have shown that any agency has formally cancelled a
collective bargaining agreement, the abovementioned actions demonstrate that certain agencies have in essence disregarded critical provisions of the collective bargaining agreements. Furthermore, the actions demonstrate that certain agencies are operating in accordance with the Executive Order by setting aside core provisions of the FSLMRS that Congress unequivocally deemed to be “in the public interest.”
New Order from the DC District Court
The new decision from the circuit court directs the parties of the case to “meet and confer and submit a joint status report on or before 12:00 p.m. on May 22, 2025. The joint status report shall provide proposed next steps for this litigation in light of the D.C. Circuit’s May 16, 2025 Order.”
Conclusion
The district court judge obviously took issue with the Court of Appeals issuing a stay of the preliminary injunction issued by the DC District Court. He has directed quick action for a status report with “proposed next steps for this litigation”.
Presumably, a decision will be issued by the DC district court on the issues in the case in which the union is attempting to invalidate the Executive Order that would impact unions representing many federal employees in these agencies:
- 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
This is a case with complex issues. It is made more complex as district courts are weighing in with their independent decisions, as various district court judges are trying to exert authority over national security and other federal issues.
Other decisions will be reviewed by their respective Courts of Appeal in these legal jurisdictions. Eventually, the case will probably be addressed by the Supreme Court, culling through the legal morass now building through the judicial system.
