A three-judge panel ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s firings without cause of Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, Democratic members on the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board, were lawful.

The split 2-to-1 panel decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has no immediate effect, since both Harris and Wilcox’s firings were finalized in May. But Friday’s ruling comes as the Supreme Court is expected to soon hear arguments on whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor — a decision that could expand Trump’s power to shape independent agencies.

In the 1935 Supreme Court ruling on Humprey’s Executor, the justices unanimously found that commissioners can be removed only for misconduct or neglect of duty, effectively limiting when presidents can fire board members.

But when Judges Gregory Katsas and Justin Walker ruled Friday in favor of Trump’s firings of Harris and Wilcox, they argued that MSPB and NLRB fall outside the limitations stemming from Humphrey’s Executor, and that the president can still “remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power.”

“The NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial,” the judges wrote. “So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members.”

Judge Florence Pan, the dissenting panel member and a Biden appointee, argued that the two agencies do fall under the scope of Humphrey’s Executor, and that maintaining the independence of MSPB and NLRB is critical. She wrote that the Trump administration’s “extreme view of executive power sharply departs from precedent.”

“We may soon be living in a world in which every hiring decision and action by any government agency will be influenced by politics, with little regard for subject-matter expertise, the public good, and merit-based decision-making,” she wrote.

The MSPB is an independent agency responsible for adjudicating appeals from federal employees who allege prohibited personnel practices by their agencies. The NLRB investigates unfair labor practices in the private sector and oversees union elections. Both boards are typically composed of members of both political parties.

Trump fired both Wilcox and Harris within his first few weeks in office, but did not point to a specific reason for the terminations. Wilcox and Harris, both of whom were Democratic board members, sued the president over their removals, arguing that they are protected by a federal law meant to ensure MSPB and NLRB’s independence from political considerations — and that the president can only remove them “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Though a federal judge initially ruled the two terminations were unlawful, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in May, effectively green-lighting the finalization of the board members’ firings earlier this year.

In its May decision, the Supreme Court indicated that it was likely “that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power,” which it said would make restrictions on the president’s ability to fire them unconstitutional. Friday’s panel ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s initial arguments.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Monday on Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission — a case that may further influence the outcome of both Harris and Wilcox’s terminations.

The Associated Press contributed reporting.

The post Appeals court backs Trump’s firings of MSPB, NLRB members first appeared on Federal News Network.

A federal judge in San Francisco is temporarily blocking the State Department from finalizing hundreds of employee layoffs.

Judge Susan Illston approved a temporary restraining order on Thursday, preventing the department from officially terminating more than 200 employees, most of them Foreign Service officers.

Separately, federal employee unions are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to reverse more layoffs than agencies have allowed under a spending deal that ended the recent government shutdown.

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association filed the emergency request for a temporary restraining order to bar the “imminent and unlawful execution” of reduction in force notices the State Department sent this summer.

“The severe threats to the public presented by the imminent State Department actions necessitate a temporary pause to protect the status quo for plaintiffs and the employees they represent who are adversely impacted by these imminent separations,” the emergency request states.

The emergency request is part of an ongoing lawsuit that unions filed on the eve of the government shutdown, which blocked the Trump administration from conducting widespread layoffs during a lapse in congressional funds.

The amended lawsuit states that several agencies, including the State Department, aren’t fully adhering to a provision in the shutdown-ending spending bill that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out layoffs.

The nonprofit Democracy Forward, which is also part of the lawsuit, said the amended lawsuit seeks to reverse “other unlawful RIF actions” at the Small Business Administration and the General Services Administration, as well as the departments of Education and Defense.

“Those RIFs would violate the federal legislation that ended the federal government shutdown, which prohibits implementation of any RIFs through January 30,” the amended complaint states.

The continuing resolution Congress passed on Nov. 12 states that “any reduction in force proposed, noticed, initiated, executed, implemented, or otherwise taken by an executive agency between October 1, 2025, and the date of enactment, shall have no force or effect.”

It also states that between Nov. 12, 2025 and Jan. 30, 2026, “no federal funds may be used to initiate, carry out, implement, or otherwise notice a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees within any department.”

Agencies, however, have followed a narrower interpretation of the stopgap spending bill, and have only reinstated federal employees who received RIF notices between Oct. 1 and Nov. 12. The amended lawsuit states that interpretation of the continuing resolution “is significantly under-inclusive.”

Agencies recently told a federal court that they rescinded shutdown-era RIF notices for more than 3,600 employees.

The State Department sent RIF notices to nearly 1,350 employees in July. Most of those employees were officially separated from the agency in September.

But this Friday, Dec. 5, the department plans to officially remove nearly 250 Foreign Service employees and several civil service employees whose separation dates were postponed, because they recently gave birth or faced medical issues.

The State Department claims that the continuing resolution’s layoff protections only apply to RIF notices that went out after Oct. 1.

“Defendants are wrong,” the amended complaint states. “The plain language of the continuing resolution prohibits any actions implementing any RIFs of any employees at any agency between November 12, 2025 and January 30, 2026, and requires recission of any previously issued RIF notices (regardless of when they were issued) if the RIFs were implemented during the shutdown.”

The amended lawsuit also takes issue with how the State Department modified the official separation date for impacted employees.

Foreign Service employees were originally told they would be separated from the agency on Nov. 10,  when the agency was still affected by the government shutdown. But on that date, employees received a notice from the department’s human resources offices that said they would remain on administrative leave so the agency could correct “administrative errors.”

On Monday evening, employees received a notice that said they will be officially separated from the State Department this Friday.

“The RIF notices were not reissued, and employees received nothing further from the State Department regarding the now-expired RIF notices until December 1, 2025,” the amended lawsuit states.

The State Department’s notice to employees cites “formal written guidance” from the Office of Management and Budget and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel regarding RIFs that had been issued prior to the shutdown, but further implemented during or after the shutdown. The unions leading the lawsuit say that formal written guidance hasn’t been made publicly available.

“During the shutdown, the State Department continued to implement the stages of these RIFs in preparation for final separation of the employees, including by processing personnel paperwork in advance of the planned separations,” the amended complaint states.

The unions claim that without a temporary restraining order, State Department employees and their families will suffer “irreparable harm,” including a loss of income and health insurance benefits.

“For many of these employees, the imminent loss of employment means a sustained loss of income and benefits in a job market already flooded with unemployed former State Department and USAID employees,” the amended complaint states.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement that “Congress clearly stated that no federal employees should lose their jobs due to a reduction-in-force for the duration of the continuing resolution.”

“This means that no RIF should be issued or acted upon, and any RIF terminations that occurred during the shutdown must be reversed,” Kelley said.

AFSA President John Dinkelman said in a statement that these “unlawful separations reveal a callous indifference to the rule of law and the people who carry out America’s diplomatic mission every day.”

The post Federal judge blocks imminent State Dept layoffs, as unions seek to reverse RIFs at other agencies first appeared on Federal News Network.

The Trump administration’s plans to shutter four small agencies are indefinitely on hold, following a court’s recent ruling.

A federal judge in Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction on Nov. 21, blocking the administration from taking any further action to eliminate the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business and Development Agency, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the Interagency Council on Homelessness.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March, eliminating these agencies — and three others — “to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” But attorneys general in 21 states sued the administration, arguing that these agency closures would have downstream effects on state-level operations.

The permanent injunction ordered by U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. prevents the four agencies from “taking any future action to implement, give effect to, comply with, or carry out the directives contained in the Reduction EO.”

McConnell determined that the Trump administration’s decision to conduct widespread layoffs, terminate grants and eliminate programs at these agencies “undermined their ability to perform functions mandated by statute.”

“By now, the question presented in this case is a familiar one: may the executive branch undertake such actions in circumvention of the will of the legislative branch? In recent months, this court — along with other courts across the country — has concluded that it may not. That answer remains the same here,” he wrote.

The agencies targeted for elimination are responsible for funding museums and libraries, mediating labor disputes, supporting minority-owned businesses, and preventing and ending homelessness.

Over the course of several months, the Trump administration fired, placed on administrative leave, or reassigned nearly all employees in these four agencies. The administration cancelled a wide range of grants to the agencies, and cancelled public programs and services that the agencies provided.

McConnell said these decisions left the agencies unable to carry out their statutorily mandated functions, and unable to spend their congressionally appropriated funds.

The court issued a preliminary injunction in May. The Trump administration appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction, but dropped its appeal on Nov. 21, following the judge’s permanent injunction. Federal News Network has reached out to the White House and the Justice Department for comment.

The Supreme Court and federal appeals courts have mostly allowed the Trump administration to proceed with plans to shutter agencies and conduct mass layoffs across the federal workforce.

The Trump administration argued that a preliminary injunction in this case prevented agencies from implementing the president’s priorities.  McConnell, however, said he ruled in favor of the states, given a “plethora of injuries” that would arise, if the court did not intervene.

States told the court that closing IMLS would force the closure of public libraries, force them to implement hiring freezes and stop providing services that support literacy and learning. State universities said they would be forced to lay off employees, eliminate student programming and default on contracts without continued funding for MBDA.

In other cases, states said some of their agencies and programs are at risk of work stoppages and negotiation impasses, without FMCS around to resolve labor disputes. States also told the court they would lose expert assistance on how to reduce homelessness without the Interagency Council on Homelessness.

“All this to say: the injuries alleged are to the States themselves and are far more than merely economic or speculative,” McConnell wrote.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James called the ruling a “major victory in our ongoing work to defend important services.”

“The federal government’s illegal attack on these agencies threatened vital resources for workers, small businesses, and the most vulnerable in our communities,” James said.

The American Library Association said the court’s decision “restores everything that the executive order tried to take away.”

“Convincing a federal judge that shuttering a supposedly obscure agency would have an immediate and devastating impact on millions of Americans is no small feat,” ALA President Sam Helmick said. “Libraries also strengthen local economies by supporting jobseekers, small businesses and community learning. Protecting these resources matters.”

The post Federal court blocks Trump administration’s plan to scrap 4 small agencies first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript: 

Jared Serbu Mr. McDaniel, let’s talk a little bit about some of the underlying factors and reasons why you organized this letter in the first place. What has changed that concerns you enough to take this step in recent days, weeks, months?

Dustin McDaniel Well, we’ve seen a significant increase in threats on the judiciary both at the state and federal level for the last several years. We pointed out that threats have increased significantly as per the numbers from the U.S. Marshal Service, and that doesn’t even count state judicial officials. And honestly, we were aware of it, but earlier this year, a group of incumbent actively serving federal judges reached out to me and my co-chair of SAGE, the Society of AGs Emeritus in Nebraska, John Brunning, and they asked specifically for former attorneys general to use their voices as lawyers and as former chief law enforcement officials in our states to encourage Congress to focus on the issue. And that was a very unusual thing. We’ve never had federal judges ask us, honestly, for anything. And so it drew our attention to the fact that they must genuinely be afraid for themselves, their families, and the integrity of the judicial system. So that was the first thing that sparked it. I will also tell you that back in September, I was in New Jersey for a meeting of attorneys general and Federal Judge Esther Salas spoke to the group and she had the most tragic story which she has been telling across the nation. But as a federal judge, she was targeted for assassination. And the man came to her home and her son and husband made it to the front door before she did. And her husband was shot several times and survived, but her son was murdered. And she was the intended target. And since that time, she has been an evangelist around the country trying to raise awareness that these threats are not just against individual members of the judiciary, but against our judicial system as a whole, undermining the rights and liberties of every single American. So between the call this summer and hearing Judge Salas speak so personally about her own experience, we felt moved to try to do what we could.

Jared Serbu And judges generally don’t go out and hold a press conference every time they receive one of these threats and they probably don’t get the media or public attention that they probably otherwise would if they were to do something like that. I mean, what’s your sense of how commonplace these sorts of things are becoming that just sort of escape public attention, because the U.S. Marshal Service, the statistics keeping agency, is really the only one tracking it?

Dustin McDaniel Well, I know that when I was attorney general, we had a political assassination in Arkansas of a high ranking official, and that prompted me to do internal security reviews in our own office. And I had no idea how many threats that I as the AG was getting on a a rather frequent basis. And so we have seen attorneys general, at that time security for AGs was kind of the exception. Today it’s the norm. And you talk to attorneys general who never thought they would want or need to have part-time or even full-time security detail, and it’s because of the credibility and frequency of the threats against them and their families that they simply have no choice. We are hearing that at the same level in the judiciary. After Judge Salas’ son Daniel’s tragic and senseless murder, we have seen a significant increase in threats on judges in the form of pizza deliveries. Federal judges at their home will receive late at night an unordered pizza delivery, and the name on the pizza will be Daniel, which is Judge Salas’ dead son’s name. That only signal to a federal judge is, we know who you are, we know where you are, and that we are sending you a message, whoever they are. Even if that never results in violence, that clearly is intimidating and upsetting and undermining the independence and security of our judicial system, which again is about more than just the judges. It’s about the people.

Jared Serbu Have you seen any indications, and this is impossible to quantify, I realize, that this change in the threat environment is influencing either the ways or the actual content of judicial decisions? Do we have any indication that it’s playing a role in how the judiciary operates?

Dustin McDaniel Well, we have always known that jurors who are judicial officials, even though they’re ordinary citizens, when they are serving as a member of a jury, they are judicial officials critical. And we know that intimidation and bribery of jurors has long been a concern. And we do have specific cases of that. I don’t have any specific cases that I can cite where a federal judge folded under threat or pressure and ruled in a way that he or she would not have ruled otherwise, but they’re human beings. And of course they’re going to have to take some of that into consideration. And it certainly makes it harder. The federal judges that I talk to, most of whom, they’re all underpaid. Our federal judges are underpaid. They certainly could make more money in private practice if they didn’t commit themselves to a lifetime of service to the nation. And the ones I talk to do it because they believe it’s their duty, and their patriotic duty to the country to serve in that capacity. So what I’m seeing from judges is a strong resilience and a commitment that they’re not going to be intimidated and they are going to do their jobs despite these threats, which makes them all the more important for us to protect them. And certainly their families didn’t sign up for that that risk and duty. And so the fact that they continue to go to work and make tough decisions every day is, they’re used to it when they are sentencing mob bosses. They’re not used to it when just their ordinary daily duties lead to the crazy people in their community targeting them for violence, often for political reasons.

Jared Serbu And so part of the ask in the letter is increased funding, and more security kind of throughout the Article III World. What would that actually look like in practice? And are there obvious gaps that you see right now that’s kind of low-hanging fruit that needs to be taken care of right away?

Dustin McDaniel Well, we got forty, the former attorneys general of forty states and the District of Columbia and I think three territories to sign on to this letter because we recognize that the problem has to be addressed. That being said, we stopped short of trying to tell Congress how to do their job. The Congress can appropriate money, and I think everybody trusts the U.S. Marshal Service to know their jobs and know how to fill the gaps once they get adequate funding and resources. I know from my own experience that they have proactive means to where they are looking for threats, even those that have not made themselves known, and then they have a reactive function to react once a threat comes in or someone says or does something that gets on their radar. I trust the U.S. Marshal Service to do their job well as long as they’re given adequate resources and time and personnel to do it. And make no mistake, this is only at the federal level. It was not practical for us to send a similar letter to every state legislature in the country. However, this is a pressing issue in every state in America.

Jared Serbu What’s behind all that? Because that fact, the fact that this is happening both in federal cases that may receive a lot of media attention or are politically charged in some way, that it’s not isolated to those and that it’s also extending to state courts, kind of points to some sort of broader, I almost want to say cultural problem. I don’t know what it is. What’s your take on what’s behind all this? And, to the extent we can point to those things, are there things that can be done, again to take your point on proactive versus reactive, to tamp down those threats instead of just responding to them?

Dustin McDaniel Well, it’s a way bigger issue than any one person can really address, and my opinion on how it’s come to be is just like anyone else’s, but we’ve certainly seen in the last thirty years a rise in school shootings, mass casualty events, online hostility, people venting their tempers in ways that would have not been anticipated, much less considered acceptable, not that long ago. There are angry people in our society. Why they’re angry, everyone’s got their opinion on that. How they manifest their frustrations, regardless of whether they’re with the economy or their elected officials or the judicial system or things that are much more personal, there are outlets, but one outlet that is simply not acceptable and that we cannot tolerate is threatening those people that we as a society entrust to hold folks accountable, to enforce our rights, to keep us safe in our own homes. We can’t expect any of that of the judiciary if they themselves are under daily threat.

The post When federal judges fear for their families, the entire justice system is under attack first appeared on Federal News Network.

Interview transcript:

 

Terry Gerton EPA enforcement cases have plummeted, even as noncompliance rates climb. Now, a major staffing cut at the Justice Department’s environmental section and a federal shutdown that paused inspections leave enforcement at a crossroads. Federal News Network’s Eric White spoke with former EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Stacey Geis about the resource drain crippling environmental enforcement and whether states can fill the widening gap.

Eric White You know, as far as EPA enforcement, environmental enforcement from a federal perspective, things were kind of on a downward trend already and then with a slight bump. And now the first few months of the Trump administration, DOGE came in, the EPA was certainly on the list of agencies that they felt they could take some action against. What is the state of federal environmental enforcement right now? Let’s begin there.

Stacey Geis I think it’s important to understand the context of your question, meaning what is the state of environmental enforcement been, say, for the last 15 years generally and the landscape we are in right now? Back in, I think it was 2019, but there was a report that was done by Cynthia Giles, who was head of the office of enforcement and compliance assurance at EPA back in the Obama administration. And she went off to Harvard and did a report that showed that the level of significant noncompliance in the United States is surprising. And the numbers are that generally most facilities that have permits to pollute are 25% out of compliance, 25% of those companies are out of compliance with existing laws, regs or permits. And that for the facilities that emit the most hazardous air pollutants, the numbers were up to 50%, 75% noncompliance. So I say it because you’re starting from a place where we have more noncompliance than I think we would all expect. And of course, there could be a lot of reasons for that, including it could be laws that are tough to know how to comply with. So there’s a host of reasons. But I say that because it’s important to then put that into context of where we are now. Back during the Bush administration, Bush II, EPA was doing up to 6,000 enforcement cases a year. And then there was a very big decrease starting in the Obama years, and it just kind of kept going down, where they really decreased resources EPA’s enforcement. And now, you know, when the last administration came in and tried to revitalize EPA, hired hundreds of people, including in the enforcement division, and the numbers started going back up. But still, so in 2024, there were about 1,800 cases, civil enforcement cases that were concluded. So now we are in this, in the last 2025. What we’ve seen is two things. One, a reprioritization of this administration when it comes to what type of enforcement they want to do. And so a lot of folks, including the Department of Justice and the Environmental and Natural Resources Division were, on day one, reassigned to do other things, including immigration. And then of course, there was a whole host of terminations, administrative leaves, people who resigned, and then I think thousands who took the “fork in the road.” So we have an incredible resource drain right now at EPA. We also have it at the Department of Justice, which is obviously the partner that does a lot of the enforcement. So I would say where we are right now is that we will see in December, that’s when EPA has to announce, or generally for the last 10 years has announced, its enforcement results, its annual enforcement results. Meaning: how many civil cases were done, how many criminal cases, how many hundreds of millions of pounds of pollution were removed in the United States because of those enforcement actions? Those numbers will come out in December and it will be very interesting to see what those numbers are compared to prior years.

Eric White Let’s talk a little bit about the manpower aspect of this. What does proper environmental enforcement require? Does it need a lot of attorneys, investigators? I imagine that these aren’t easy cases to make, proving causation and whether or not who is to blame for environmental pollution, that can probably be tough given that it can be hard to obtain hard evidence. Can you just expand upon how, you know, just having workforce cuts in general to environmental enforcement, whether it is EPA or DOJ, and the effect that that just has on environmental enforcement in general.

Stacey Geis There’s federal enforcement, EPA does enforcement, DOJ does. There’s also states that do that, and we can talk about that later in terms of how potentially whether we will see the states gap-filling because of what we think will be a lack of federal enforcement. But going to your question, it is a whole team that exists to put together an enforcement case, and it starts with the inspectors. And those are also part of the Office of Enforcement. So you have inspectors who just routinely go out — like with any regulation, whether it’s OSHA, they go and they inspect the facilities for compliance. It starts there. And that’s one thing, for example, that’s paused during the shutdown, inspections are paused. But it’s the inspections that then are one of the key ways that an agency finds out that a facility may not be in compliance. And then that starts — you may have investigators who come in and start investigating further. You have to have scientists. You have to have hydrologists. You have to have people who know air regulations, who can come in and ascertain whether or not this really non-compliance. What level? Is this something that rises to the level of an enforcement action? And if so, what kind of enforcement action? Is it something that it should be a minor fine and they’re going to fix it? Or is it’s something that’s lying, cheating, stealing, and they are being deceptive, bypassing the pollution scrubber, and you could be looking at a criminal case. So you have inspectors, you have investigators, and then you have all the attorneys both at EPA and the Department of Justice. EPA has its own enforcement program where they do kind of those more minor, what we call administrative enforcement actions, where it’s going to be a fine and course-correcting and getting the company back into compliance. And then if it turns out the violations require a more serious enforcement, whether civil or criminal, it’ll be referred to the Department of Justice. And those Department of Justice attorneys then bring the cases to court. So that’s why the incredible drain we’re seeing in resources at DOJ as well — and I can give you numbers on that, but the environmental section is down, I think 50% to 60% of what it was in January — means understandably less resources to develop the case and less resources prosecute.

Eric White We’re speaking with Stacey Geis. She is a senior counsel with Crowell and Moring, also former deputy assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency. You mentioned something in your first answer regarding how compliance could be tied to … it’s really, really hard to be in compliance, right? Especially when you’re operating a facility that is dealing with a lot of different chemicals. I mean, you know, just forming compliance, sometimes the drain comes from the people that you’re trying to enforce the regulations on, just because they need that expertise in order to reach compliance. Are there enough compliance experts to go around and also, how tough are these regulations to be in compliance? Are certain industries just going to always be having to deal with this?

Stacey Geis That is a question that we could have a whole day on that, in terms of how to craft good regulations that both are easy for the company to understand and comply with and easy to enforce. What I will say, though, is one of the challenges with the shutdown — because people are asking, what is the impact of the shutdown? I mean, the industry is facing incredible uncertainty. With the shutdown, what is paused, both at EPA and DOJ, are most enforcement actions. Criminal enforcement actions continue under their various shutdown plans, and it’s always been that way. And there’ll still be enforcement when it comes down to imminent and substantial threats to public harm or the environment. That is a very small subset. One thing that the Office of Enforcement does — it’s called the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, because not only does it enforce the laws, it’s there to provide compliance assistance to the companies, to help them. We want them to comply you, we as a public want companies to comply, right? And we want to have agencies, federal or state, that are assisting them in helping understand those regulations so they can comply. Right now, I don’t know if they called up EPA or one of the regions if they’re going to get the person, because they’re furloughed, to answer those questions. So one thing with this shutdown is not only does it mean that enforcement’s not going forward, but there’s a real uncertainty that the industry is facing right now, too, in terms of their cases aren’t moving forward, they can’t get in touch, they may have compliance questions they cannot get answered. So it actually impacts anyone who is affected by environmental regulations, meaning affected by pollution.

Eric White When you were in your position at EPA, how often were you all paying attention to those numbers? I’m just wondering about, you now, sometimes we can get caught up in, “well, the numbers increase that must mean that everything is on the up and up,” or you know, numbers are down as you had mentioned, when they’re severely down, something is definitely going on. What was the push and pull between quality versus quantity there, as far as the number of enforcement cases that you all were actually pursuing? And how did that factor into your analysis of whether or not you felt you were doing a good enough job or not?

Stacey Geis The question you want to address whenever you’re doing enforcement is going after the most harm, right? And you have limited resources. And then any unlawful violation, but certainly one of like a public and health and safety regulation, which is what pollution regulations really are, is how do you take these limited resources and best use them to enforce laws in a way that will alter behavior going forward, not just that company that may be out of compliance, but the entire industry? And so that is the challenge and always the work you’re doing is, how do you use those resources effectively and efficiently? And so while numbers matter to some extent in terms of showing like exactly what, what cases are being done, how many inspections are being done, there’s certainly a metric by which you want to use it to assess how your programs are going. You also are always looking and doing a harm analysis. Focusing on which of the cases rise to the level of the greatest harm, that maybe a federal response could be needed versus maybe the state could handle it. So that is always the calculus, it’s sort of this balance, right? So it’s never that the numbers mean everything, but that’s why you combine those numbers with, okay, so this is how many cases you prosecuted, this is many civil cases you did … that’s why when they bring the numbers, and that’s why the December numbers will be so important, is they do things like the on the ground metrics. How much pollution was reduced, was cleaned up, because of those enforcement actions? That’s a good metric. And one we’re going to want to look at. Because again, the goal is to abate the harm.

Eric White I don’t want to get you in any trouble, and you can talk as vague as you’d like, but I was wondering if we could maybe get some insight on a particular case. Who was your Al Capone? Who is your white whale that you were able to get one time? Like I said, you don’t have to mention any specifics, but is there anything that you can recall, an insight into what you saw one time and you were to successfully get them either in compliance or successfully prosecute any sort of criminal malfeasance?

Stacey Geis I mean, I can certainly talk about the defeat devices and the sort of “VW-gate” matters — that was where the company was intentionally altering the emissions control to allow the trucks or the vehicles to pollute more than the laws, regulations and permits allowed. And that was a billion-dollar criminal civil case. VW was not the only one. So those cases were still going forward while in the last couple of years. And even in the last year, there was one against Cummins, and this is public, it’s huge, they made all the Ram trucks. I think they paid over $1 billion. And then there was once against Hino, that’s public, that was a criminal-civil matter — they were called the subsidiary of Toyota. But again, those are really big cases where you’re really addressing a systemic issue. And again, bringing those cases, having very high fines, and even some of those cases being criminal is hopefully a deterrent and a message to other companies of, hey, if you’re going to try to unlawfully alter the systems of your software and your cars to pollute beyond what is allowed, that there will be enforcement there. So I think that was almost like a bigger effort that went over years, but that was something that happened in the last couple of years that I think were significant cases.

Eric White  And finishing up here, we’ve seen the Trump administration decrease the resources in areas that they feel have too much government oversight in them; CFPB comes to mind. And what I’m feeling is, is that a major Supreme Court case is probably in our future of determining what an executive branch can do and what the threshold is. You know there are environmental laws that say the federal government is responsible for enforcement in this area; at what point do you deplete enough resources where a reasonable person can feel the government is not fulfilling that law? I just was curious about getting your thoughts on that, and if that is in fact in our future of some major case that may set the precedent for that.

Stacey Geis That’s a great question. And you hit on an important point, which is, again, as I noted earlier, a lot our environmental laws that are federal laws have been delegated to the states to implement and enforce. Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, hazardous waste laws. And there’s still a very vital role for the federal enforcement program, and there’s a big reason for that. There’s three things that need to happen. A lot of the question has been, well, if federal environmental enforcement decreases, how, if at all, will the states step in to gap-fill where there’s noncompliance in their states and there’s not an enforcement action? But there’s three issues with that. One, you have a state that has the resources to actually do those cases, including maybe the bigger ones. You need to have a state that prioritizes environmental enforcement. A lot of states are dealing with so many other big issues; it could be housing, it could be healthcare, or it could be a lot of things, right? So you need to have a state that actually is putting resources and prioritizing environmental enforcement in their state. And then, like you said, there’s several threats to the environment and public health that are not enforced by the states, and only EPA can do those, like pesticide registration, most enforcement in Indian country. And then there’s certain Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and hazardous waste laws that only implemented by EPA and DOJ. Coal ash contamination is a big one, that’s a place where we see a lot of noncompliance. And so as a result in 2024, EPA came out with national enforcement initiatives, which is really to look at what are the biggest serious threats to the country that there’s so much significant noncompliance that it really could use federal assistance, or it’s in an area that only EPA enforces, not the states. Coal ash contamination was one of those. So you’re right, we very well will get to a place — I think these numbers in December will be really helpful to see what’s happening. I think what we all care about is, what’s the on-the-ground impact to the people? We have tens of millions of Americans who can’t drink their tap water. And that was another enforcement initiative, was really focusing on the community water systems throughout the country, thousands of which are often violating at least one health-based standard. And what are the efforts? NEPA had a whole program, to not just enforce but really provide compliance assistance to help those community water systems be able to provide safe drinking water to Americans. That’s where we’ll want to look and see, what are the impacts of this reduction, this serious reduction in workforce, reduction in priorities? And then obviously some of these things the states can’t do because they’re not delegated to do it. And even if they did, do they have the resources and will?

The post When a quarter of polluting facilities ignore the law, who’s left to enforce it? first appeared on Federal News Network.

A federal union representing over 30,000 Bureau of Prisons employees is suing the agency over its recent cancellation of the BOP’s collective bargaining agreement.

The lawsuit, filed last week by the American Federation of Government Employees’ Council of Prisons Locals 33, alleged that the agency’s decision to cancel the union contract violated First Amendment rights, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

The union argued that BOP Director William K. Marshall III’s Sept. 25 announcement ending the labor-management agreement “made clear” that the contract was not canceled due to President Donald Trump’s executive orders, or for “national security” purposes. Instead, the union alleged that it was a form of retaliation, and that the agency did not follow required procedures in its actions.

The union is asking for an injunction to reverse the collective bargaining agreement’s cancellation at BOP.

An AFGE official, speaking anonymously for fear of professional retaliation, said the intention of the new lawsuit “is to protect our members and advocate for them the way we always have.”

“Our agency was status quo for months — then just decided out of nowhere that this union is a roadblock,” the official said. “Especially in law enforcement, you need protections in place. You need a union to be able to help these staff through these situations. That, to me, is our biggest driving force. We just want to be there to protect our people.”

A spokesperson for the BOP declined Federal News Network’s request for comment, stating that the agency does not comment on pending litigation or ongoing legal proceedings. The spokesperson instead directed to Marshall’s initial September announcement for information.

In the September announcement, Marshall said the decision to cancel the contract was “to make [employees’] lives better,” while adding that AFGE had become “an obstacle to progress instead of a partner in it.”

“[The union contract] didn’t give you your protections, the law did, and Bureau policy continues them,” Marshall said in September. “This isn’t about taking things away, it’s about giving you more.”

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump issued two executive orders, calling on most agencies to cancel their union contracts and terminate collective bargaining for broad swaths of federal employees.

Although Trump’s orders made use of a narrow legal provision that lets a president suspend collective bargaining for “national security” purposes, BOP’s announcement in September made no direct mention of national security.

The union said in its new lawsuit that there was no “reasoned explanation” for ending the BOP contract, in effect a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the union alleged that BOP failed to consider alternatives to the contract’s cancellation, as well as the interests of union members by “suddenly pulling the plug on union protections.”

The lawsuit also argued that the contract termination violated the First Amendment, which prohibits agency officials from retaliating against either individuals or organizations based on their protected speech.

As a result of the contract’s termination, BOP employees “have become even more hesitant than they were already to engage in activity that is or could be perceived as being contrary to policies of the Trump administration,” the union wrote.

More broadly, AFGE is suing the Trump administration over the president’s pair of executive orders and several agencies’ subsequent actions ending collective bargaining. The BOP lawsuit, in comparison, is more narrowly focused on the timing and manner of BOP’s specific decision to cancel the contract covering bargaining unit employees.

AFGE National President Everett Kelley expressed support for the new and separate lawsuit at BOP.

“Their union contract has provided employees a voice at work to ensure critical protections, including safeguards against unsafe working conditions, unfair discipline and staffing shortages that put both workers and the public at risk,” Kelley said, adding that ending the contract “is a dangerous action that should alarm everyone.”

The legal action also comes as the Protect America’s Workforce Act, a bill to reverse the Trump administration’s efforts to remove union protections, heads toward a House floor vote. If enacted, the legislation would restore collective bargaining for tens of thousands of federal employees.

Many agencies have proceeded with “de-recognizing” their unions, after an appeals court in August granted a stay on a preliminary injunction that had previously been preventing agencies from implementing Trump’s anti-union orders.

But in comparison with other agencies’ contract terminations, BOP’s decision was delayed. It took nearly two months following the court decision before the agency moved forward with ending the agreement. Originally, the contract was set to expire May 28, 2029.

The contract laid out policies for employees on overtime, shift work, sick leave and safety requirements, as well as procedural protections for employees during reduction-in-force proceedings. The agreement also secured limitations on disciplinary actions, and set standards around official time, and grievance and arbitration procedures.

“The [collective bargaining agreement] was the product of years of negotiations to safeguard essential rights for bargaining unit members,” the union’s lawsuit stated.

During the two months prior to the contract’s cancellation, the union said the agency appeared to be upholding the contract’s policies, for example by holding labor-management relations meetings, and maintaining space for union officials on-site — but then moved to terminate the contract “effective immediately,” with little notice to union officials.

In his September announcement, Marshall stated that canceling the contract would not have any impact on job security, pay, benefits or safety for correctional officers.

But union officials said there were issues “almost immediately” after the collective bargaining agreement was ended. For instance, the union is now no longer able to represent employees when there are workplace issues, such as an instance of alleged harassment on the job. Prior to the contract’s cancellation, union officials would speak with BOP leaders and work to conduct an assessment or investigation into any issues that arose.

“The union typically walks you through the process, helps you respond, helps you through the investigation,” a union official said. “But we’re not there — and these staff don’t know what they can and can’t do, because we’ve always been there.”

The post BOP union seeks restoration of collective bargaining through new lawsuit first appeared on Federal News Network.

• A federal union is suing the Trump administration for not handing over a list of employees that agencies might be targeting to remove their job protections. The new lawsuit from the National Treasury Employees Union alleges that the Office of Personnel Management violated the Freedom of Information Act by not providing those details. The union’s legal action comes after the Trump administration earlier this year revived an effort to make large portions of the federal workforce at-will and easier to fire.
  (Lawsuit alleging FOIA violation by OPM - National Treasury Employees Union)
• The Department of Homeland Security is giving bonuses to Transportation Security Administration employees who worked through the partial shutdown. More than 270 Transportation Security Officers at Logan airport in Boston are among the first TSA employees to receive a bonus from DHS for working without pay during the 43-day shutdown. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem awarded these TSOs a $10,000 bonus on Saturday in appreciation for their dedication and commitment over the last seven weeks. DHS said it is paying for these bonuses using carryover funds from fiscal 2025. Noem announced the administration's plan to give these bonuses on Friday.
  (270 TSOs receive $10,000 bonus for working during shutdown - Department of Homeland Security)
• About 4,000 federal employees who were previously told they were going to be laid off should be receiving a cancellation notice by the end of the day. The spending agreement Congress passed last week gave agencies five days to rescind all reductions-in-force that were announced during the shutdown. OPM said the cancellation notices to employees need to include how much back pay the workers will receive. The employees are owed payments equal to what they would have been paid, had they not been laid off in the first place.
  (RIF actions affected by continuing appropriations - Office of Personnel Management)
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s acquisition system reforms could meaningfully reshape how the Pentagon does business, only if the department can avoid the mistakes of the past. Acquisition experts say the reforms could help to break down entrenched silos across the department’s acquisition enterprise and drive greater coordination and integration. But the success of Hegseth’s reforms will hinge on whether the department can change its culture and equip the workforce with the skills needed to operate differently. Otherwise, the system can quickly revert to its old ways. And whether the department has the workforce to support such a sweeping overhaul is unclear. DoD has already lost 5% to 8% of its civilian workforce since the start of the Trump administration.
  (DoD acquisition reform: What will it take to make it last? - Federal News Network)
• SAIC continues its bloodletting, just three weeks after moving on from its CEO. The federal contractor parted ways with three more executives and consolidated business groups. The company said Josh Jackson, its executive vice president for the Army, David Ray, its space and intelligence EVP, and chief innovation officer Lauren Knausenberger will pursue other opportunities outside of the company. Additionally, SAIC will merge its Army and Navy business groups into one and bring its Air Force and Combatant Commands, and the Space and Intelligence business groups together to become the Air Force, Space and Intelligence Business Group.
  (3 more SAIC executives to leave the company - SAIC)
• Agencies are being reminded to patch unsecure devices that are being targeted by hackers. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said some federal agencies haven’t fully patched vulnerable Cisco devices. CISA directed agencies to update that software back in a September emergency directive. But in new guidance last week, CISA said it’s aware of multiple organizations that haven’t updated to the minimum software version. The cyber agency warned that the vulnerable Cisco device software poses a significant risk to all organizations.
  (Updated implementation guidance for emergency directive on Cisco - Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency)
• The Department of Homeland Security is facing calls to release an unclassified report on security flaws in U.S. telecommunications networks. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) wrote Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, urging them to publish the report from 2022. They say not publishing it undermines the public debate over how to best secure U.S. telecom networks. The lawmakers point to the recent "Salt Typhoon" campaign, in which suspected China-backed hackers successfully broke into American telecom systems and devices.
  (Wyden, Warner telecoms security letter - Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) )
• The Department of the Navy’s new Innovation Adoption Kit lays out a unified framework for evaluating, implementing and scaling innovative technologies across the naval enterprise. The memo is designed to help commanders and program managers bridge the gap between emerging commercial solutions and mission-ready capabilities. It offers practical methods to accelerate the transition from pilot to program of record and tailor agile approaches to fit within the Navy’s operational and acquisition constraints. Officials say these tactics can be applied across a wide range of missions.
  (Navy unveils toolkit to speed adoption of emerging technologies - DON CIO)

The post National Treasury Employees Union sues Trump administration first appeared on Federal News Network.

• Transgender Air Force and Space Force servicemembers are suing the Trump administration for rescinding pensions that had been previously granted by the Air Force secretary. President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January that banned transgender people from serving in the military. In June, the Air Force approved retirement orders for the Airmen named in the lawsuit, but two months later the service reversed the course, informing airmen, each with at least 15 years of service, that they would be separated without retirement benefits under the ban. The lawsuit argues that revoking those retirement orders violates Air Force policies and procedures. Transgender servicemembers affected by this will lose an estimated $1 to 2 million over the course of their lifetimes, the lawsuit says. It will also strip them of lifetime access to TRICARE health coverage.
  (Transgender veterans sue Trump administration for denying retirement benefits - U.S. Court of Federal Claims)
• The bill to re-open the federal government would also extend a critical cybersecurity law. The continuing resolution passed by the Senate would extend the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 until the end of January. The law’s authorities expired on Oct. 1. Experts say CISA 2015 provides crucial liability and privacy protections that encourage companies to share data about cyber threats. Government officials say companies have continued to share information following the law’s expiration. But they say a longer-term lapse could derail public-private collaboration on cyber threats.
  (CR bill text - Senate Appropriations Committee )
• A bipartisan bill would require the Labor Department to keep track of AI-related layoffs happening across the federal workforce. The bill would also require the department to collect data on AI’s impact on jobs at major companies. Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are leading the bill. They say the legislation would give the federal government a clearer picture of which jobs are impacted the most by AI and which new jobs are being created.
  (Hawley, Warner to introduce bipartisan legislation revealing number of jobs lost to AI - Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.))
• A Senate-passed spending deal to end the government shutdown also sets staffing targets for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The spending bill gives the VA 90 days to provide the House and Senate appropriations committees with a staffing model that will ensure it can provide timely health care and benefits. The VA previously planned to eliminate more than 80-thousand positions, but scrapped plans for a department-wide reduction in force, and instead planned to eliminate 30,000 positions through attrition by the end of fiscal 2025. The spending bill specifically bars the VA from reducing staffing levels, hours of operation or services at the Veterans Crisis Line or any of its other suicide prevention programs.
  (Senate-passed spending deal sets VA staffing targets amid reorganization - Federal News Network )
• Violent threats against public servants have been escalating over the last decade. A new report from the Public Service Alliance and The Impact Project found that threats of doxxing, harassment and physical attacks have all been on the rise since 2013. The two non-profit groups recently released a “security map,” showing not only an increase in volume, but also an expansion of who is targeted.
  (New dataset on threats to public servants reveals over a decade of danger - Public Service Alliance and The Impact Project)
• Federal employees have a new opportunity to share more about their experiences in the workplace this year. The Partnership for Public Service has launched a new governmentwide survey for federal employees, in an effort to fill a major gap in workforce data. The initiative comes after the Trump administration canceled the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey earlier this year. Current civilian federal employees can take the Partnership’s Public Service Viewpoint Survey between now and Dec. 19. The topline results will be released in early 2026.
  (Amid data gap, an alternative to FEVS emerges for federal employees - Federal News Network)
• After a banner recruiting year, the Coast Guard is identifying locations for a new training center. The service released a request for information on Monday to identify facilities that could lodge 1,200 new recruits. The Coast Guard is planning to add 15,000 personnel to its ranks in the coming years. It recruited more than 5,200 new service members last year — well above its annual target of 4,300 recruits. The deadline to respond to the Coast Guard’s training center RFI is Dec. 8.
  (Coast Guard solicits potential locations for additional training center - Coast Guard )
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is putting pressure on a leading industry group to stop opposing bipartisan right-to-repair efforts that would allow service members to fix their own equipment. In a letter to the National Defense Industrial Association, Warren called the organization’s opposition to reform proposals in the House and Senate versions of the annual defense policy bill a “dangerous and misguided attempt to protect an unacceptable status quo of giant contractor profiteering.” NDIA argues that the provision would allow the Defense Department to provide parts, tools and information to any authorized third-party contractor, including a company’s direct competitors. The industry group said these efforts will “hamper innovation” and “deter companies from contracting with the DoD.” Warren said that “the opposite is true” and that the argument “appears to be a late-in-the game effort to confuse and scare members of Congress and muddy the terms of the debate.”
  (Senator accuses defense industry of blocking Congress’ right-to-repair reforms - Federal News Network)

The post Transgender servicemembers are suing the Trump administration for rescinding pensions first appeared on Federal News Network.