TPM Files Amicus Brief for the ACLU Challenging President Trump’s Executive Order Stripping Federal Workers of Collective Bargaining Rights

On August 29, 2025, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP (TPM) filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Northern California in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, Case No. 25-4014 (9th Cir.). The amicus brief was filed in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees, which are six federal workers’ unions challenging President Trump’s action to strip collective bargaining rights from nearly two-thirds of the federal workforce.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after President Trump issued a March 27, 2025 Executive Order (Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs, Exec. Order No. 14,251, 90 Fed. Reg. 14553 (Mar. 27, 2025)) that revoked collective bargaining rights for the vast majority of their members, amounting to nearly two-thirds of the federal workforce. A Fact Sheet explained that the President took the action because he considered the unions “hostile,” claiming that the unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” including by filing grievances “to block Trump policies.” All of the unions’ activities on behalf of the workers they represent are permitted by law and contract and protected by the First Amendment.

The Executive Order relied on the President’s authority to exempt federal workers from labor protections under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101 et seq., upon determining that they have “national security work” as a “primary function.” 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1). On June 24, 2025, Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Executive Order, finding that it was likely that the Executive Order was issued to retaliate against Plaintiffs for public and legal opposition to President Trump’s agenda. The government appealed that injunction, and it is now under consideration by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit panel has stayed the injunction pending resolution of the appeal.

The amicus brief filed by TPM argues that the district court was correct to conclude that it is likely that the government’s actions pursuant to the Executive Order violate the First Amendment.

First, the amicus brief demonstrates that Plaintiffs make out a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation. Most tellingly, official statements from the government—including a White House Fact Sheet accompanying the Executive Order—explain that the President is taking action against what it calls “hostile” federal unions, asserting that these unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,” including by filing grievances “to block Trump policies,” an activity permitted by law and contract and protected by the First Amendment.

Second, the amicus brief explains that the courts must engage in meaningful judicial scrutiny of the government’s claim that its actions further “national security.” The failure to provide such judicial scrutiny would seriously threaten all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly where the government has defined “national security” broadly, as it does here, to encompass virtually all aspects of government, including healthcare, energy production, environmental protection, trade policy, the collection of taxes, and the protection of “America’s economic and productive strength.”

For more information, please contact Nicholas Soares at nsoares@tpmlaw.com.