Share and Follow
President Donald Trump departs after signing an executive order at an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).
The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday pushed back against claims that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority when issuing an executive order that purported to strip collective bargaining rights from one of the largest federal labor unions in the nation.
In a 44-page filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the government implored the judge overseeing the case not to issue a preliminary injunction on the union’s behalf.
The crux of the matter is a dispute over the executive order titled “Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Programs” and whether or not the revocation of collective bargaining rights covering “multiple Cabinet-level agencies” is a valid exercise of presidential power.
The plaintiffs claim Trump’s order is broadly illegal, in violation of various federal statutes governing federal union rights, and unconstitutional retaliation that violates the First Amendment.
In no uncertain terms, the government rejects those claims.
“Plaintiff, a national labor union that represents certain federal employees, has filed the present lawsuit seeking to second guess a lawful exercise of the President’s authority,” the DOJ’s response begins.
The executive order relies on a carveout in federal law. Under that law, the 45th and 47th president made a national security determination that more than a dozen agencies are exempt from labor law requirements because they have a “primary function” in “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.”
The response offers an historical argument for the president’s authority to issue such sweeping and impactful determinations.
“Since 1979, when President Carter exempted more than forty-five agencies or subdivisions pursuant to that authority, Presidents have issued executive orders exempting additional agencies and subdivisions from the statute’s coverage as they have assessed the Nation’s changing needs,” the government’s motion continued.
In the underlying lawsuit, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the nation’s second largest federal union, argued the executive order is a thinly-veiled effort to continue with the Trump administration’s wider plans to drastically shrink the federal workforce by making it easier to terminate employees. The union also said the order amounts to “political retribution” over a series of lawsuits unions have filed challenging the administration’s broader plans.
The government, for its part, said the union cannot even challenge the issue in federal court – aiming to have the case ended quickly with a procedural argument that has become standard fare in litigation during the second Trump administration.
“[T]his Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims,” the response went on. “Congress intended claims under Chapter 71 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute to be covered by the comprehensive remedial scheme set forth in that statute.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
The government also said the plaintiffs fail on the merits.
From the filing, at length:
Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction should be denied for multiple reasons. To start, Plaintiff fails to establish irreparable harm absent the immediate relief it seeks. The harms alleged in Plaintiff’s motion are all either remediable on a favorable ruling later in this case, or insufficiently certain and imminent to justify the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. Nor can Plaintiff establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, which broadly allege that the President impermissibly exceeded lawful authority delegated to him by Congress and that the President, in exercising this authority, retaliated against Plaintiff.
“And in any event, the President’s exercise of discretion here is readily supported by the facts and the law,” the response continued.
The case is being overseen by Judge Paul L. Friedman, a Bill Clinton appointee.
