American Federation of Govt. v. Donald Trump
929 F.3d 748
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- In May 2018 the President issued three executive orders changing federal labor-relations practices (collective bargaining procedures; limits on "official time"; and streamlined removal procedures for poor performance/misconduct).
- AFGE and other federal unions sued in D.D.C., challenging the orders as beyond presidential authority, violative of the Constitution, and inconsistent with the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS). Cases were consolidated and decided on cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court found it had jurisdiction, ruled the President had authority generally, but held nine provisions of the orders violated the FSLMRS and enjoined the President’s subordinates from implementing them.
- The government appealed, arguing the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the FSLMRS provides an exclusive administrative review scheme through the FLRA and direct review to the courts of appeals.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed: it held the unions’ claims fall within the exclusive statutory scheme (administrative FLRA process then courts of appeals), so the district court lacked jurisdiction and its merits judgment was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court jurisdiction is precluded by FSLMRS review scheme | Unions: claims (including pre-implementation and systemic relief) are not the type Congress intended to channel to FLRA/courts of appeals; district court may hear constitutional and ultra vires claims | Gov: FSLMRS provides exclusive remedy; unions must proceed via FLRA then courts of appeals | Held: jurisdiction precluded; claims must be channeled through FLRA and then courts of appeals |
| Whether requiring administrative exhaustion would foreclose meaningful judicial review | Unions: statutory scheme denies pre-implementation and systemwide relief so review would be inadequate | Gov: Thunder Basin and precedent recognize that later FLRA proceedings and appellate review provide meaningful review | Held: meaningful review remains available through FLRA then appellate review; Thunder Basin and AFGE precedents control |
| Whether unions’ claims are wholly collateral to the statutory scheme | Unions: constitutional and separation‑of‑powers claims are collateral and hence not subject to statutory channeling | Gov: claims concern alleged violations of the FSLMRS and thus fall within the scheme | Held: claims are not wholly collateral; unions seek relief that FLRA/courts can provide |
| Whether FLRA lacks expertise to resolve the disputes | Unions: constitutional questions and claims against the President lie outside FLRA expertise | Gov: many claims turn on statutory interpretation and bargaining/non‑bargaining disputes within FLRA expertise | Held: FLRA expertise is adequate and useful; agency can address statutory issues and narrow or moot constitutional questions |
Key Cases Cited
- ATF v. FLRA, 464 U.S. 89 (1983) (history of executive orders and FLRA role in federal labor relations)
- Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) (statutory review scheme can preclude pre‑enforcement district court suits where scheme affords meaningful review)
- Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012) (appellate review from agency proceedings can reach constitutional challenges)
- AFGE v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 716 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (FSLMRS provides exclusive procedures; district courts lack jurisdiction over federal labor‑relations claims)
- AFGE v. Loy, 367 F.3d 932 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (constitutional claims by federal unions must be channeled through FSLMRS)
- Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (framework for determining whether claims are precluded from district court review)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (a court must have jurisdiction before reaching merits)