In a 2-1 decision on May 30, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the Northern District of California blocking Executive Order 14210, which authorized widespread federal layoffs and agency reorganizations. The majority opinion ruled that the president lacked unilateral authority to enact such changes without congressional approval, as this violated the separation of powers. The court found that plaintiffs, including unions and municipalities, would suffer irreparable harm from the layoffs, affirming the district court’s injunction. The Trump administration subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 2 granted a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees, et al., against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The injunction temporarily prevents DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from terminating the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering approximately 47,000 Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). Citing likely violations of the First and Fifth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act, Judge Pechman ruled that the union was likely to succeed in showing the action was retaliatory and unlawful, ordering TSA to restore the agreement.
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which imposed a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs in Title VII discrimination cases, was inconsistent with the text and intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual without distinguishing between majority and minority groups, thus eliminating the additional burden on majority-group plaintiffs and simplifying their path to pursue reverse discrimination claims.
U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote of the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction on June 9, 2025, finding that OPM violated the Privacy Act of 1974 and bypassed its cybersecurity protocols by granting unauthorized access to sensitive personnel records to individuals affiliated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The lawsuit, filed by federal employee unions and individuals, challenged OPM’s disclosure of personal data, such as Social Security numbers, health, and banking information of tens of millions of federal employees, retirees, and applicants, without demonstrating a credible need.
As drastic reductions to the federal workforce continue to face challenges in the court system, check in with the DailyFed to keep track of the latest developments.
