American Federation of Government Employees, AFL CIO v. United States Office of Management and Budget
Case Overview
In fall 2025, the Trump administration issued an OMB directive ordering federal agencies to carry out mass layoffs. The unions, led by AFGE, argued the directive bypassed what Congress actually requires for workforce reductions at scale: specific notice periods, seniority protections, and placement alternatives that the Civil Service Reform Act mandates before agencies can shed workers en masse. Courts blocked enforcement temporarily, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction in February 2026, ruling the unions were unlikely to win while confirming that district courts have jurisdiction to hear the challenge.
BrynoDC Coverage 4 videos
The Application
The unions argue the OMB directive violated these statutory requirements by ordering mass layoffs without following the Civil Service Reform Act's procedural safeguards. A district court initially agreed and blocked enforcement, but the Ninth Circuit vacated that injunction in February 2026, finding the unions unlikely to succeed on the merits while confirming district courts retain jurisdiction over the substantive challenge.
The Conclusion
The case remains active with the temporary block dissolved. The Ninth Circuit's vacation of the injunction signals the unions face significant legal obstacles, though the confirmed jurisdiction leaves the underlying statutory compliance questions open for continued litigation in the district court.
Case Analysis
Overview
A coalition of unions which represent federal employees sued the Trump administration over the firing of thousands of probationary federal employees, allegedly for "performance reasons." The suit alleges that OPM does not have the authority to direct these firings and that these terminations were in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
Overview
In fall 2025, the Trump administration issued an OMB directive ordering federal agencies to carry out mass layoffs. The unions, led by AFGE, argued the directive bypassed what Congress actually requires for workforce reductions at scale: specific notice periods, seniority protections, and placement alternatives that the Civil Service Reform Act mandates before agencies can shed workers en masse. Courts blocked enforcement temporarily, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction in February 2026, ruling the unions were unlikely to win while confirming that district courts have jurisdiction to hear the challenge.
Issue
Whether the Office of Personnel Management had statutory authority to direct the termination of thousands of probationary federal employees and whether those terminations complied with the Administrative Procedure Act's procedural requirements.
Rule
Federal civil service law restricts agency authority to terminate employees to powers specifically granted by statute, and the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to follow procedural safeguards including notice and opportunity to be heard before taking adverse employment actions.
Analysis
The Trump administration's alleged direction to fire thousands of probationary employees for stated performance reasons raises questions about whether OPM had statutory authority for such mass terminations and whether the APA's procedural protections were provided to affected employees.
Conclusion
The court decided the case, determining whether OPM possessed the authority to direct such terminations and whether the administration's actions complied with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support