What’s at stake in this case?
Unions have challenged a Trump Executive Order that takes away collective bargaining rights from many federal workers
What happened in this case?
In February 2025, Trump issued an Executive Order that took away collective bargaining rights from many federal workers, including at the State department, the Department of Justice, and the EPA. Although other Trump actions have also harmed union rights, it is estimated that the February order deprived “hundreds of thousands” of workers of these rights. A number of unions sued, and a district court entered a preliminary injunction stopping the order.
The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which stayed the injunction pending appeal. In February 2026, Trump Judge Daniel Bress wrote a decision that vacated the district court injunction, allowing the elimination of collective bargaining rights to go forward, in AFGE v Trump..Trump nominee Bridget Bade joined the decision, and Obama nominee John Owens concurred.
What was the basis for Trump judges Bress and Bade to reverse the pro-labor decision below?
Trump judge Bress noted that the district court had enjoined Trump’s order based on a First Amendment theory that it was issued in retaliation for the unions’ criticism of anti-worker actions by Trump. Bress concluded, however, that the unions had not “demonstrated a likelihood of success or serious questions on the merits” of its retaliation claim. He also maintained that the government would be harmed by the injunction, although he conceded that the unions will suffer irreparable harm if the Trump order goes forward. Obama judge Owens wrote a concurrence stressing that the unions could prevail on the merits once a full record is developed below.
Why is the result harmful?.
Trump judge Bress’ decision obviously harms hundreds of thousands of federal workers, who will lose their collective bargaining rights at least while the case continues. The ruling also sets a troubling precedent concerning review of Trump actions relating to labor rights, at least in the Ninth Circuit, which includes California, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. . The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.