Since President Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, dozens of lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality and constitutionality of his efforts to reshape the federal government. Below is a selection of cases with recent developments that affect the federal workforce and agency operations, along with the current status of each case as of Feb. 12.
Deferred resignation
(American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO et al v. Ezell et al)
U.S. District Court for Massachusetts
What are the allegations?
Three federal unions claim the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” program for federal employees violates the Administrative Procedure Act, and that its promise to pay those who resign through the end of September would be a violation of the Antideficiency Act.
What’s the latest?
On Feb. 6, a federal judge in Boston ordered a temporary halt to the program, enjoining the Office of Personnel Management from “taking any further action to implement the so-called Fork Directive” until the matter could be argued at a Feb. 10 court hearing. However, Judge O’Toole made no ruling during that hearing. The program remains in limbo “until further order of the court,” and OPM said it intends to close the program to any additional resignations “as soon as legally permissible.”
USAID shutdown
(Global Health Council et al v. Donald J. Trump et al; American Federation of Government Employees et al v. Trump et al)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
What are the allegations?
A new lawsuit filed on Tuesday alleges the administration’s unilateral dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development — particularly its stop-work orders — has left hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid bills for work that has already been done, and forced mass layoffs and furloughs at USAID throughout the agency’s supply base. Earlier, a separate lawsuit filed by federal unions alleged shutting down the agency without an act of Congress violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.
What’s the latest?
On Feb. 7, a federal judge in D.C. granted a temporary restraining order in the unions’ lawsuit, ordering the administration to reinstate USAID employees who had been placed on administrative leave and ensure they have access to agency IT systems. At a hearing scheduled for Feb. 12, the judge will consider a longer-term and possibly more wide-ranging preliminary injunction against the agency’s purported shutdown.
Funding freeze
(State of New York et al v. Trump et al)
U.S. District Court for Rhode Island and First Circuit Court of Appeals
What are the allegations?
Nearly two dozen states have sued the Trump administration, alleging that the president’s directives to freeze various grant and other federal funding disbursements violates the U.S. Constitution, including the appropriations clause, which gives Congress the power of the purse.
What’s the latest?
On Feb. 10, Judge John McConnell issued an order suggesting the government had not complied with a temporary restraining order he had issued the previous week, which required federal agencies to resume their normal payments to grantees and other recipients. “The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country,” he wrote. The administration filed an emergency appeal to the First Circuit asking it to stay McConnell’s order, calling it “intolerable judicial overreach.” For now, however, the appeals court is allowing the restraining order and McConnell’s later order enforcing his ruling to stand.
NIH funding
(Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al v. National Institutes of Health, et al)
U.S. District Court for Massachusetts
What are the allegations?
In a Feb. 10 lawsuit, numerous state governments say the National Institutes of Health violated federal appropriations law with a Feb. 7 rate change notice that capped the indirect costs NIH would pay to its research grantees at 15%. They allege the cap would “mean the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and other workers, putting a halt to countless life-saving health research and cutting-edge technology initiatives.”
What’s the latest?
On Feb. 10, a federal judge in Massachusetts agreed with the plaintiff’s request to issue a temporary restraining order in the case, barring the administration from implementing the rate change notice. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21.
DOGE access to employee data
(Electronic Privacy Information Center et al v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management et al; Doe et al v. Office of Personnel Management)
U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Virginia; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
What are the allegations?
A lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center on Feb. 10 against the Department of the Treasury and Office of Personnel Management claims that granting data access to teams working for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency violated the Privacy Act, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act and the Fifth Amendment. The lawsuit calls it “the largest and most consequential data breach in U.S. history.” A separate suit filed on Jan. 27 by seven anonymous federal employees claims the new email system OPM established to email all federal employees in a single email blast violates the E-Government Act.
What’s the latest?
On Feb. 6, a federal judge in D.C. denied a request by the anonymous plaintiffs for a restraining order, but allowed their attorneys to refile their request. A renewed restraining order motion, filed on Feb. 8, alleges the privacy impact assessment OPM prepared for the email system is “factually inaccurate and legally insufficient.” A hearing on the latest request is scheduled for Feb. 14.
The post A roundup of litigation affecting federal employees, agencies first appeared on Federal News Network.
