Case Explained: AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, ET AL. V. TRUMP, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 Docket: 3:25-cv-03070-JD The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction that had blocked President Trump’s Executive Order 14,251, which excluded numerous federal agencies from collective bargaining requirements under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). The court held that the plaintiffs, representing federal employee unions, failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their First Amendment retaliation claim. The panel applied the *Mt. Healthy* “but-for” causation standard, which requires the government to show it would have taken the same action even in the absence of protected conduct. The court reasoned that Executive Order 14,251 contains no retaliatory animus on its face and is grounded in the President’s statutory authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1) to exclude agencies based on national security considerations. Although the plaintiffs relied on a White House Fact Sheet suggesting hostility toward unions, the court found that the Order and supporting documents demonstrated a legitimate, non-retaliatory objective: ensuring that agencies with intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security functions could operate without interference from collective bargaining agreements. The court further determined that Congress did not intend to channel these specific jurisdictional challenges to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) because the unions represented employees excluded from the FSLMRS statutory scheme. Consequently, the preliminary injunction is vacated and Executive Order 14,251 remains in effect. The court noted that while the government has a strong interest in national security that outweighs the unions’ interests, the plaintiffs may still pursue their claims on the merits or seek other relief as the litigation proceeds. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.