BOYHOWDY! COURT DOUBLE-SPANKS ADMINISTRATION OVER SHENANIGANS RELATING TO UNLAWFUL TERMINATION OF VETERANS ADMINISTRATION UNION CONTRACT!
This is so delicious! And once again this administration has been hoisted on its own petard by the Court’s taking notice of the administration’s own public statements and using those statements against them!
This one is somewhat complicated, so I’m going to break it down to the plain English basics as best I can. Those of you who have an interest in labor, unions, or hey, even ‘just’ workplace policies will really enjoy the included documents!
Here are the players:
The Plaintiffs include the National VA Council (NVAC) of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); NVAC is a ‘bargaining unit’ affiliated with the AFGE.
The Defendants are Doug Collins, secretary of the VA, and the VA itself.
The judge is Judge Melissa DuBose of the District Court of Rhode Island.
Ever since 1971 the rights of federal employees to avail themselves of collective bargaining has been codified in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS).
A president can *exempt* units of federal employees from the protection of and access to their collective bargaining rights if the president determines that the the agency or subdivision “has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work”.
The VA is actually considered such an agency, as it plays a role in preparing for national emergencies (natural disasters, war, and even terrorism) by “working on plans and implementing actions to support local, state, and national emergency management efforts, ensuring continuity of services to veterans, coordinating with other agencies, and serving as backup for medical military personnel.”
The NVAC had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in place.
In March of last year Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that, among other things, took note of the VA’s role in national security and, on the basis of that order, Collins *terminated* the collective bargaining agreement with NVAC and other collective bargaining units.
Now, you may be thinking “But Anne, they’re allowed to do that because of the VA’s role in national security.” And you would be right, *if* that was the real reason for the termination of the CBA. But, as you will see, the Plaintiffs said that it wasn’t the real reason, and the Court agreed.
You see, after that EO was issued, and the CBA with the various bargaining units was terminated, the administration *exempted* certain bargaining units from the termination, and reinstated them.
And what sorts of units were reinstated? Units that were aligned with Trump’s agenda and policies.
And what sorts of units *remained terminated*? Well, units that vocally challenged that same agenda and those same policies.
In other words, what that EO along with the subsequent reinstatement of some units but not others really did was punish units that didn’t toe the party line. So the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit (the Complaint is included for Notes from the Front members).
Fortunately the administration admitted as much, publicly, in several ways. For example, from a “fact sheet” posted on the White House website:
“The President needs a responsive and accountable civil service to protect our national security. Certain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda. The largest Federal union describes itself as “fighting back” against Trump. It is widely filing grievances to block Trump policies. . . . President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests.”
And from a VA spokesperson:
“The unions in the exempted units have posed no or minimal hinderance to VA operations… They have filed no or few grievances against VA and they have not proved an impediment to the department’s ability to effectively carry out its mission . . . AFGE, NAGE, NNU and SEIU by contrast are using their authority under the [FSLMRS] to broadly frustrate the administration’s ability to manage the agency.”
So, the Court issued a preliminary injunction (included for Notes from the Front members) ordering the administration to reinstate the collective bargaining agreement that it had terminated.
And that is where it *should* have ended, except the administration *didn’t* reinstate the agreement, instead filing a motion “for clarification” of the Court’s *very clear* injunction. It’s important to note, as indeed the Court does, that the defendants *could* have (and should have) still reinstated the agreement *while* asking for clarification of that *very clear* order.
In other words, while it’s *possible* that the current batch of DOJ lawyers is so intellectually stunted that they really didn’t understand that *very clear order*, it doesn’t really matter because they *should* have still followed the order while seeking clarification.
So the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, and with it they included an *82-page* declaration describing in great detail all of the hardships to which individuals had been subjected by the government’s failure to comply with the injunction. For example a VA employee who needed to extend her maternity leave and who was told “the union has not been reinstated, maternity leave cannot be extended at this time and you will need to report to work as scheduled.” However the main reason why it’s 82 pages is because it *includes the transcript* of the actual hearing in this case! (Both Plaintiff’s motion to enforce, and the 82-page declaration with the transcript are also included for Notes from the Front members.)
By now you may be thinking “Anne, this is cuckoo for cocoa puffs!” and you would be right, but wait, it gets even better!
Last Monday during a hearing the Court issued an order from the bench – in other words *the Judge spoke these words to the government’s lawyers during the hearing*, and that order said, among other things (swallow your coffee before you read this):
“Before the Court is Defendants Motion to Clarify the Preliminary Injunction entered on March13, 2026. The Defendants claim to be confused by two ambiguities they perceive in the text of the preliminary injunction order. The Court does not know how to state the order any more simply or directly. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the August 2025 termination of the Master CBA was a retaliatory action in violation of the First Amendment and an arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the APA. The Court ordered the Defendants to reinstate the Master CBA. To reinstate the Master CBA means that all parties covered by this contract will continue to be covered by this contract until it is terminated or amended in a lawful manner.”
Then, last Thursday, the government filed a status report which included a copy of a *new* “Notice of Termination of Collective Bargaining” (included for Notes members).
The Court then issued an order clarifying its already clear order that yes, the administration must reinstate the collective bargaining agreement, and by the way that new termination notice had no effect because didn’t comply with the injunction because it was not a *lawful* termination notice! (chortle) But wait, there’s even more! That order also ordered the government to ‘show cause’ by *tomorrow* (3/31) as to why the Court *should not hold the government in contempt!* (this order also included for Notes members).
Yesterday (yep, Sunday) the government filed an emergency motion to stay the Court’s order, and of course they also appealed it, to which Judge DoBose replied with this text order just this morning:
“Plaintiffs’ response to the Emergency Motion to Stay shall be filed by close of business on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. The contempt proceeding is held in abeyance pending the Circuit’s disposition of the appeal. So Ordered by District Judge Melissa R. DuBose on 3/30/2026”
Anyone want to guess what the Circuit Court of Appeals will do with this?
Notes from the Front members: the Complaint, the Injunction, the Motion to Enforce, the Declaration and Transcript, the Order to Enforce, and the new Notice of Termination are all in your inbox now.
Want the documents but not a Notes from the Front member? Join us now to access this and all of our documents. In fact you’ll never miss any of my posts or the documents that go with them as they will land directly in your inbox! It’s just $5 a month (or $50 a year), and I do all the research so you don’t have to. Plus as a member you get access to our private members-only chat (so many great people in that chat!), the all-documents archive, the occasional podcast or live broadcast, and more. Join at the link below, which will also give you immediate access to the documents included with this post:
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the words “cocoa puffs”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about cocoa puffs. ;~)
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/boyhowdy-court-double-spanks-administration
Source