National security rationale for Trump's anti-union executive order deemed a cover for retaliation by the judge
In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman has temporarily prevented the administration from implementing a March executive order, following a lawsuit from the National Treasury Employees Union. The order, aimed at substantially changing the nature of the federal workforce, has been a subject of controversy since its inception.
Judge Friedman's 46-page opinion explains his decision, stating that President Trump's invocation of a provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act was a "mere pretext" for retaliation against unions resistant to his workforce policies. The judge found that the president's determinations regarding agency exemptions from the federal labor statute did not meet the standard that an agency subcomponent must have a "primary function" of national security.
The executive order precludes unions' ability to seek redress from the FLRA, as the FLRA does not hold jurisdiction at agencies that have been excluded from the statute. The administrative review scheme is not available to challenge the executive order's exclusion of the agencies and subdivisions subject to the executive order because they have been excluded from the statute's coverage by the order itself.
The government's interpretations of "primary function” were either overly broad or disregarded the term entirely, according to the judge. The government's arguments for agency exemptions pointed to generalized mission statements referencing national security or individual functions with a national security valence, but failed to demonstrate that the entire agency or subdivision's primary function is national security.
The judge's opinion states that it is strong evidence that the president's invocation of the national security exemption was to remove barriers created by the labor statute to his unrelated policy objectives. The judge's decision does not address the merits of the executive order itself, but focuses on the process by which it was implemented and the potential for it to bypass the administrative review process.
The FLRA has already indicated it would dismiss a complaint filed by NTEU in relation to the executive order. This ruling, however, presents a hurdle for the administration in implementing the controversial order. The judge's findings suggest that the executive order may have been used to bypass the administrative review process and avoid challenges from unions.
It's important to note that this is not the first legal challenge to executive orders during the Trump administration regarding the rights of federal employees and unions. An example is the Executive Order 13836 from May 2018, which limited the ability of federal employees to organise and collectively bargain. This order was met with criticism and was challenged in several courts.
The judge's decision is a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between executive power and labour rights in the federal workforce. As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the administration responds and whether the executive order will face further legal challenges.
Read also:
- Lu Shiow-yen's Challenging Position as Chair of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Under Scrutiny in Donovan's Analysis
- Over a tenth of the apprentices in Thuringia exceed the number.
- Film festival director Pascale Fakhry states, "We've consistently connected in our movie theaters"
- EU elections focus on galvanizing voters
