A federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking pre-approval to terminate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with federal employee unions, ruling that the court lacked jurisdiction—largely due to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision restricting the judiciary’s reach.
U.S. District Judge Alan Albright, a Trump appointee in the Western District of Texas, rejected the White House’s attempt to end labor agreements across federal agencies by executive order. In his ruling, Albright said the administration’s request was premature and likened it to the kind of “judicial overreach” the Supreme Court sought to limit in its recent decision in Trump v. CASA.
That case significantly narrowed the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts. Albright drew a direct parallel, saying allowing the administration to secure preemptive approval for its actions would represent the “flip side of the same coin.”
“The Court’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA,” Albright wrote in his 27-page ruling. “[F]ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.”
The Trump administration’s March 27 executive order—EO 14251, titled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs—directed agencies with primary roles in national security, intelligence, and law enforcement to stop collective bargaining with unions. The Office of Personnel Management followed up with guidance advising departments such as Defense and State that they were no longer required to negotiate with unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest union representing federal workers.
But the administration filed its lawsuit seeking judicial endorsement of its actions before the executive order had even been publicly released—an issue that proved central to the judge’s dismissal.
“It is difficult to imagine how the parties could have formed a concrete dispute over the Executive Order when that document had not yet been released to the public,” Albright wrote. Without an actual legal conflict at the time of filing, he said, there was no “case or controversy” required to invoke federal jurisdiction.
Although sympathetic to the administration’s frustration with frequent legal challenges—Albright acknowledged the White House faced nearly 25 nationwide injunctions in its first 100 days—he emphasized that courts must stay within constitutional limits.
“While the Court understands the reasoning behind the Administration’s response to what it perceives as improper judicial overreach,” Albright wrote, “the solution to perceived judicial overreach is not more judicial overreach, but a return to the principles of judicial restraint.”
He also criticized the strategy of racing to favorable court venues. “Allowing the government to seek a declaratory judgment every time the Executive signs a new Executive Order appears to this Court to simply be an escalation in the battle to gain some advantage by selecting the litigation forum,” he wrote.
Ultimately, Albright concluded, the relief sought by the administration was functionally no different than the kind of sweeping injunctions it frequently criticized—both efforts aimed at preempting the other’s legal position through the courts.
