On February 26, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a pivotal decision in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump (No. 25-4014), vacating a lower court’s preliminary injunction and clearing the way for implementation of Executive Order 14251. This Order heralded a sweeping Trump administration policy removing collective bargaining, grievance, and arbitration rights from a large swath of federal employees on national security grounds.
What the Executive Order Does
Executive Order 14251, issued on March 27, 2025, invoked the national-security exemption in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) (5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1)), to exclude dozens of federal agencies and subcomponents from collective bargaining obligations.
Under the labor relations statute, most civilian federal employees had the right to union representation, collective bargaining, and grievance arbitration. The Executive Order redefined coverage by determining that certain agencies’ “primary function” involves national security, intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work and that labor-management procedures “cannot be applied … in a manner consistent with national security requirements.”
The effect is that agencies identified in the Order would no longer be required to recognize or negotiate with unions or honor union contracts, ending decades-old practices for many federal employees. Agencies explicitly designated include the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, Veterans Affairs, Energy, and Treasury, as well as the EPA, NSF, GSA, and various personnel units across the executive branch.
The Office of Personnel Management’s guidance instructed covered agencies to cease recognition, dues transmission, grievance handling, arbitration, and official time for union representatives.
Key Ninth Circuit Findings
In a unanimous panel opinion authored by Judge Daniel A. Bress, with Judge John B. Owens concurring separately, the Ninth Circuit:
- Vacated the District Court’s injunction: The panel concluded that the six unions representing approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees who filed the lawsuit failed to show they were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim. The court held that even if retaliatory intent were assumed, the government demonstrated it would have issued the order regardless of any union opposition because it was legitimately grounded in national security concerns.
- Affirmed jurisdiction: The court found that it could review the preliminary injunction despite the government’s contention that challenges should proceed before the Federal Labor Relations Authority, given that excluded employees fall outside the statutory labor scheme.
- Interpreted the national-security exemption broadly: The decision accepted the use of 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1) to justify exclusions based on agencies’ mission functions, reinforcing the president’s authority to define when bargaining obligations conflict with security needs.
How Unions Have Fared in Lawsuits Against This Executive Order
Federal employee unions have not filed one lawsuit. There has been a wave of lawsuits filed challenging the legality of the President’s Executive Order. Unions, including the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) sued, alleging the order is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, violates constitutional protections (especially First Amendment retaliation claims), and exceeds presidential authority under the federal labor relations statute.
These lawsuits included requests for emergency relief, such as preliminary injunctions to block enforcement while the courts decided the merits.
Early District Court Wins… But They Didn’t Last
Unions going to court to try to halt attempts by the Trump administration to restructure the federal workforce typically file appeals in districts considered liberal political areas, where they are more likely to achieve initial success. That garners favorable publicity in the early stages of the legal process but often does not amount to much as the cases proceed.
As a result, in April and May 2025, several federal district judges granted preliminary injunctions temporarily halting implementation of the Order against federal unions in specific agencies. Judges in the D.C. District Court and the Western District of Washington found unions had plausible claims and that irreparable harm was likely without injunctions.
These early decisions gave unions temporary breathing room and delayed or partially blocked implementation at a handful of agencies.
When the government appealed those preliminary injunctions, the unions were less successful. Appellate courts have tilted in favor of the administration:
- In August 2025, an appeals court lifted the stay on the injunctions, allowing many agencies to proceed with terminating collective bargaining agreements.
- In February 2026, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction in AFGE v. Trump and upheld the executive order’s implementation, rejecting the union’s retaliation theory and ruling the government would have issued the order even absent union opposition.
These appellate reversals are the reason agencies have been cancelling contracts across much of the federal workforce despite ongoing litigation.
Here is where the litigation efforts stand now:
- Union litigation has not been completely straightforward. Most cases are still pending at the appellate level and could be reheard en banc (before all judges of a circuit). There will likely be a Supreme Court review of the issue when the dust finally settles.
- Preliminary injunctions that once protected bargaining units have largely been undone, meaning there’s no broad court prohibition on implementation right now.
- Some agencies are still tied up in litigation over specific bargaining units and whether the agencies are required to honor existing contracts while legal challenges continue.
Union Response to Latest Decision
While federal employee unions have not achieved significant success in court, they do intend to continue filing lawsuits and appealing decisions. In a press release, AFGE wrote:
Today’s ruling is not a final decision on the legality of this Executive Order. The court addressed only whether a preliminary injunction should remain in place while litigation continues. This case is not over. The merits of this case are still very much alive.
Importantly, the Ninth Circuit agreed with AFGE on a critical issue. The court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear this challenge. That is a precedent-setting victory. The administration argued that unions should be forced into an administrative process that no longer applies after workers are excluded from the statute. The court rejected that argument and confirmed that the federal courts are the proper forum to decide this dispute.
AFGE is considering whether to seek en banc review of this decision while simultaneously returning to the district court to continue litigating this case on the merits. We are confident that when the full record is developed, we will prevail. We will continue to build our case and pursue every legal avenue available.
Federal Employee Unions Under Financial Strain
While federal employee unions have been strong political allies of Democrats overall and generally take issue with changes proposed by the Trump administration, their intransigence on this issue is understandable. The loss of dues from federal employees is likely to be putting a strain on their financial situation, and pursuing litigation on a variety of fronts is not inexpensive.
In short, their continued existence, or at least their viability, is probably at stake. If the government prevails on this issue, unions will be hit hard with the loss of bargaining units throughout the federal government.
While the next Democrat to sit in the White House will probably overturn these actions by the Trump administration unless Congress passes legislation codifying the changes, this will be a very rough road for the unions, not knowing if their exclusion from agencies will end until or if the next president taking office supports their actions.
So far at least, there is no indication the unions will seek a more conciliatory and less political strategy. For now, they appear willing to continue in court as long as there are still appeals available and they have the money to proceed.
Conclusion
Federal employee unions have had some short-term wins in court, but most of those have been reversed on appeal. The executive order is currently being implemented in most agencies, and unions are now fighting at the appellate and potentially the Supreme Court level rather than enjoying broad injunction protection.
Litigation continues, but as of early 2026, the legal momentum has decisively swung in favor of the administration’s position. The final outcome is still unresolved, but on balance, unions have lost the key battles so far.
No doubt, the legal drama will continue at least throughout the current year.
