THE BREAKDOWN: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has lifted a lower court’s block on President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order 14,251, which strips collective bargaining rights from roughly 800,000 federal civilian employees. The three-judge panel ruled that while the lower court had jurisdiction to hear the case, the federal labor unions failed to show a likelihood of success on their claims that the administration issued the order as unconstitutional retaliation for union criticism.
A federal appeals court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to eliminate collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal workers, reversing a lower court decision that had put the policy on ice.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion on June 17, 2026, vacating a preliminary injunction against Executive Order 14,251. Signed by President Trump on March 27, 2025, the order excludes numerous federal agencies and subdivisions from federal labor protections based on national security concerns.
Six labor unions, led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), filed the lawsuit on behalf of approximately 800,000 federal civilian employees. The targeted agencies cover vast swaths of the federal workforce, including the Departments of State, Justice, and Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and nearly all of the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Treasury. Subdivisions within the Departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services are also affected.
The legal battle centers on the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), which protects the rights of federal employees to organize and bargain collectively. However, the law allows the president to exclude specific agencies if they primarily handle “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work,” and if normal labor rules cannot be applied “in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.”
In June 2025, U.S. District Judge James Donato blocked the order, finding a serious question as to whether the administration was retaliating against the unions for publicly criticizing and suing the president. The district court pointed heavily to a White House “Fact Sheet” released alongside the order, which stated that “[c]ertain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda” and warned that the administration “will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.”
The Ninth Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges John B. Owens, Bridget S. Bade, and Daniel A. Bress, disagreed with the lower court’s reasoning on the merits of the case. Writing for the panel, Judge Bress stated that “on this record the government has shown that the President would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct.”
The court noted that the executive order contains no retaliatory language on its face. Even when factoring in the blunt language of the White House Fact Sheet, the panel decided the administration’s primary motivation was rooted in legitimate national security priorities. The panel wrote that the order “advances national security by curtailing union activity that undermines the agile functioning of government offices with national security-related missions.”
The appeals court did side with the unions on a major procedural issue, ruling that the federal district court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The government had argued the dispute should have been funneled through the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) instead of the court system. The panel rejected this, noting it was not “fairly discernible” that Congress intended excluded unions to use the very statutory scheme they were being barred from.
In a separate concurring opinion, Judge John B. Owens emphasized that the ruling only addresses the preliminary injunction stage of the lawsuit, noting that “the fully developed factual record may be materially different” when the case goes to a full trial on the merits. He added that the critical legal test of “but-for causation inquiry is purely a question of fact.”
While acknowledging that federal workers are already experiencing “some irreparable harm” as agencies begin terminating collective bargaining agreements, the panel concluded that the government’s interests took priority. The court emphasized that “the government’s interest in ensuring the nation’s security is ‘an urgent objective of the highest order.'”
READ: The Fauci Files Unsealed: Inside The Declassified Intel That Reshaped The COVID-19 Narrative
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
