Judge halts Trump's order stripping federal workers' bargaining rights

A judge in San Francisco granted six federal labor unions' motion for a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of President Donald Trump's order that designated 40 agencies as national security related, thus stripping those departments' workers of collective bargaining rights.

In his order late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled that Trump's March 27 "Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Programs" order, raised serious First Amendment concerns and could cause irreparable harm to the unions representing government employees who publicly object to the president's policies. The unions represent 950,000 federal employees. AFL-CIO et al v. Trump et al., 3:25-cv-03070 (N.D. Cal. filed April 3, 2025).

Donato wrote in his order, "There is no doubt that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be ordered lightly. It is also true that the Executive Branch's factual judgments bearing on national security are entitled to deference and significant weight. Even so, the federal courts 'do not defer to the government's reading of the First Amendment' including when national security interests are said to be at stake."

Tyler Becker and Jeremy Mauritzen, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, argued at a June 18 hearing that the president is allowed to designate federal agencies' primary functions as national security. They also argued that a preliminary injunction should not be ordered because no irreparable harm would be suffered by the plaintiffs.

A White House fact sheet attached to Trump's order said: "The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) enables hostile Federal unions to obstruct agency management. This is dangerous in agencies with national security responsibilities."

The White House press office could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.

The unions' attorneys from Bredhoff and Kaiser PLLC and Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP declined to comment Wednesday.

Their motion for a preliminary injunction addressed the fact sheet and its First Amendment implications writing, "The Exclusion Order, according to the administration's own words that accompanied the order in real time, stripped plaintiffs and their members of their collective bargaining rights in retaliation for protected First Amendment activity."

Six federal employee unions challenged the order, including National Nurses United, which argued it was a retaliatory move against unions critical of Trump's agenda and violated their constitutional rights.

Irma Westmoreland, a registered nurse and chair of National Nurses United's VA Division representing more than 15,000 nurses in Veterans Affairs hospitals nationwide, attended the June 18 hearing and said in an email Wednesday, "I think what resonated the most for Judge Donato was the unprecedented scope and sweeping nature of the executive order with the intent to punish plaintiff unions for opposing this administration's actions. Saying that VA nurses and so many other federal workers fall under the national security exception really doesn't make any sense."

The other unions plaintiffs were: the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), National Association of Government Employees (NAGE-SEIU), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The following attorneys appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs at the June 18 hearing: Catha Worthman of Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP; Ramya Ravindran, Abigail Carter, J. Alexander Rowell of Bredhoff & Kaiser.

The Trump administration is embroiled in four other lawsuits with labor unions in Texas, Kentucy and the District of Columbia over the March 27 order.

Those lawsuits are: National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump et al.,1:25- cv-00935-PLF (D.D.C. filed March 31, 2025); American Foreign Service Association v. Trump et al., 1:25-cv-01030 (D.D.C. filed April 7, 2025); U.S. Department of Defense et al. v. AFL-CIO, District 10 et al., 6:25-cv-00119 (W.D. Tex. filed March 27, 2025); and U.S. Department of Treasury v. National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 73, 2:25-cv-00049 (E.D. Ky. filed March 28, 2025).