NTEU Lawsuit Explainer Thread

IALBNYL

Going to do this again for those interested in the legal intricacies of the NTEU case. This is the lawsuit by NTEU and other unions over the mass firings. If you're looking for the DRP lawsuit, go here instead: https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1in4irt/afge\_lawsuit\_explainer\_thread/. The state AG's lawsuit against DOG* is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/comments/1ipr4mq/state\_ags\_lawsuit\_explainer\_thread/.

As with the last one of these, this is going to get VERY in the weeds, keep scrolling if you don't care. I will comment for each docket entry (or related group) and do my best to explain what it means. Not here to editorialize on the merits of the case, just to explain the filings.

Docket link: https://shorturl.at/Jx2Xd. Some but not all documents are accessible free here. If you want copies of any that aren't, DM me and I may be able to help.

Starting off with: 1: COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons, # 8 Summons, # 9 Summons, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons, # 13 Summons) (Entered: 02/12/2025)

This is the document that starts the case. It's filed by the plaintiffs, who you could refer to as "the unions" or "NTEU," as they're the ones listed first. I'm going to refer to the defendants here as "OPM," but technically Trum* is the lead defendant.

There are two "causes of action"--think of these like criminal charges, they say the law that the defendants broke that the unions say gives them the right to sue. (You might have seen these called "claims" or other things in other cases; it's all the same thing.) The first claim here is based on "separation of powers principles." I don't recall ever seeing a claim framed this way, with no actual citation to a law or constitutional provision. It will be interesting to see if this one is tossed out. The second cause of action is based on the Administrative Procedure Act. It argues that the Executive Order (in this thread, we'll always be talking about the RIF EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative/) violates the APA because the APA sets out rules for RIFs, and the EO instructs agencies to violate those rules. Very importantly, the lawsuit was filed before most of the firings started, so the complaint claims as its cause of action that the APA WILL be violated because agencies will later engage in RIFs. This kind of future-facing claim is often difficult. Don't be surprised if a later filing adds the argument that the mass firings now happening are in fact illegal RIFs.

NTEU is asking for two types of relief: declaratory and injunctive. Declaratory relief means they want to court to tell everyone they're right. Injunctive means they want the court to make OPM do things and/or stop them from doing things. In this case, they want OPM to (1) not engage in what they say are illegal RIFs, and (2) not expand, extend, or replicate the DRP.

Those of you following along may recall that the AFGE suit failed for two reasons: standing and jurisdiction. NTEU doesn't deal with jurisdiction in any detail in this filing, but I'll comment below on the standing argument they make.