National Treasury Employees Union v. Donald J. Trump, 25-5157

In March 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order invoking 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1), excluding large portions of federal agencies (covering about two-thirds of the workforce) from the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), claiming national security justifications.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed suit, challenging the Executive Order as ultra vires (beyond the President’s authority) and as a violation of their statutory and First Amendment rights.
NTEU sought and was granted a preliminary injunction by the District Court, halting the order’s implementation.
The government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, contending the claim had to go through specialized administrative procedures, but the court found those avenues were unavailable due to the very exclusions at issue.
Central to the case is statutory interpretation: whether such a broad exclusion of employees and agencies for "national security" comports with congressional intent in FSLMRS and prior judicial definitions.
The court’s opinion focuses on the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to NTEU, and the public interest in collective bargaining rights versus executive claims of national security prerogative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction	FLRA process unavailable as excluded agencies remove the claim from administrative purview.	District court lacks jurisdiction; review must go through FLRA and appeal route.	District court has jurisdiction—no available administrative route due to the exclusion itself.
Ultra Vires Executive Action	Executive Order exceeds President’s authority by broadly interpreting “national security” and “primary function” far beyond congressional intent.	President has broad discretion under § 7103(b)(1); courts should presume regularity and defer.	Order likely ultra vires; President’s actions were contrary to Congressional intent and motivated by unrelated policy and retaliation.
Presumption of Regularity	Rebutted by evidence showing indifference to statutory purpose and retaliatory motive (e.g., White House Fact Sheet).	No clear evidence to override regularity; official acts presumed proper.	Presumption rebutted; clear evidence shows disregard for statutory criteria and retaliatory intent.
Preliminary Injunction Factors	NTEU will face irreparable harm (loss of membership, revenue, bargaining power); public interest favors statu quo.	Harm to government reversible; economic injury not irreparable; President’s national security interest paramount.	All preliminary injunction factors favor NTEU: irreparable harm shown, likelihood of success, public interest in preserving collective bargaining.

Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. Reagan, 870 F.2d 723 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (presumption of regularity for presidential exclusions under FSLMRS and the proper judicial standard for review of such decisions)
Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536 (1956) (sets a narrow meaning for “national security” in federal employment law; only activities directly concerned with protection from internal subversion or foreign aggression)
Franks Bros. Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 702 (1944) (loss of union bargaining rights causes serious and irreparable harm)
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunction, including importance of irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits)