Latest news with #9thCircuitCourtofAppeals
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump threatens federal unions
Since the most recent lifting of an injunction earlier this month, the Trump administration has canceled previously signed collective bargaining agreements with at least five agencies, and more are expected. Unions acknowledge they are facing a 'setback' and must rethink aspects of their strategy for survival under Trump. Unions had argued Trump was using national security as a pretext to go after organizations that have been vocal in challenging many other administration policies. But a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a Trump administration request to lift the last of several lower court injunctions that broadly blocked implementation of the order. The panel rejected arguments that Trump's order and an accompanying fact sheet blaming 'hostile' unions for trying to 'obstruct agency management' were a sign of the true aim of the order. 'Even accepting for purposes of argument that certain statements in the Fact Sheet reflect a degree of retaliatory animus toward Plaintiffs' First Amendment activities, the Fact Sheet, taken as a whole, also demonstrates the President's focus on national security,' the court determined. In the two weeks since, the Trump administration has quietly terminated collective bargaining agreements at the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; Department of Agriculture Food Safety Inspection Services; the Coast Guard; Citizenship and Immigration Services; and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Unions' battle for survival hit new wave with Trump termination of bargaining agreements
Federal employee unions are bracing for battle after courts have lifted a series of injunctions that were stalling the Trump administration's plans to end collective bargaining rights at a number of agencies. Trump in March signed an executive order laying the groundwork for a sweeping rescission of a number of existing union contracts at government agencies. The administration argues 18 different departments have sufficient national security roles to qualify under a law allowing the suspension of union rights at such agencies. Since the most recent lifting of an injunction earlier this month, the Trump administration has canceled previously-signed collective bargaining agreements with at least five agencies, and more are expected. Unions acknowledge they are facing a 'setback' and must rethink aspects of their strategy for survival under Trump. 'This ruling is certainly a setback for fundamental rights in America,' Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, said in a statement earlier this month. Unions had argued that Trump was using national security as a pretext to go after organizations that have been vocal in challenging many other administration policies. But a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a Trump administration request to lift the last of several lower court injunctions that broadly blocked implementation of the order. The panel rejected arguments that Trump's order and an accompanying fact sheet blaming 'hostile' unions for trying to 'obstruct agency management' were a sign of the true aim of the order. 'Even accepting for purposes of argument that certain statements in the Fact Sheet reflect a degree of retaliatory animus toward Plaintiffs' First Amendment activities, the Fact Sheet, taken as a whole, also demonstrates the President's focus on national security,' the court determined. In the two weeks since, the Trump administration has quietly terminated collective bargaining agreements at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, USDA Food Safety Inspection Services, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Court battles on the executive order are still continuing on the merits, and a lower court judge on Thursday sided with the Federal Education Association, granting an injunction that would bar any termination of union contracts at the Department of Education. But as the legal wrangling continues, many unions are in a fight for their very existence. 'For sure, we are going to fight for our existence. It's very unsettling and very disturbing that the 9th Circuit issued the ruling that they issued. I don't think that any president should have any unfettered authority that goes unchecked,' Kelley, the president of AFGE, told The Hill this week. 'That's a portion of the reason why unions exist, to make sure there's checks and balances inside of the agencies.' The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), which represents employees at the State Department and other related agencies, also sees it that way. 'The very nature of diplomacy is one of collaboration. It is one of bringing disparate parties together in order to get the input from all people involved, to find a commonality and an agreed upon way forward that isn't just done by ambassadors sitting in foreign ministries talking to heads of government,' said John Dinkelman, president of the group. 'It percolates down to the very depths of our profession. And what I've seen over the past six months is a stifling of the ability to extract from employees the full value of their potential input. Because, frankly, people are afraid,' he added, noting one employee who asked to have their name removed from articles they had written in AFSA's journal expressing support for previous administration policies. But unions are also stuck in a Catch-22, facing dead ends in other avenues where they might dispute the termination of their contracts, including the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which governs federal employee unions. 'We did file an unfair labor practice saying you've breached our collective bargaining agreement. But unfortunately, as expected, the FLRA has said, 'Hey, you're not recognized as a union right now, so we're putting this all on hold until all the until your court case is finished,'' said Sharon Papp, general counsel with AFSA. Trump fired the Democratic-appointed chair of the FLRA, Susan Grundmann, in February, despite her confirmation to a five-year term. Though a lower court initially reinstalled her, an appeals court in June removed her from her post while the legal battle continues. Unions are still hopeful that courts will ultimately side with their arguments that Trump's move is largely a retaliatory effort, but in the meanwhile, with the order now in effect, agencies can halt the collection of dues and are no longer communicating with union leads. Papp said she feels the plain language of the executive order makes clear the intent. In the fact sheet, the White House wrote that 'unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that while he supports 'constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction.' 'They don't like unions that don't get in line,' Papp said. 'They don't like unions that didn't support Trump when he was running for election, and so it has nothing to do with national security. It has to do with going after unions who gave Trump a hard time by filing lawsuits, by filing grievances, and it's plain in the language that came out with the executive order.' But she said some of the union's members worry about their affiliation and have declined to have a union representative present at disciplinary hearings. Nurses at the VA also see it as a response to their pushback on Trump plans they said would diminish care for patients. 'This is just the latest salvo in the battle to break the spirit of working people in this country,' National Nurses United said in a statement after their contract was among the first to be terminated following the court ruling. 'Nurses never abandon our patients, and we will continue to fight for the funding and safe staffing levels that our patients deserve. As union nurses, we understand that collective bargaining rights are fundamental to carrying out our critical role as patient advocates.' Despite the perception by many in the GOP of unions as left-leaning organizations, this week the Republican National Congressional Committee (NRCC) noted a shift. 'The Teamsters contributed to the NRCC and a sprawling list of House Republicans – signaling a monumental shift of working class voters towards the GOP,' the organization highlighted in an email. Beyond the court battles, unions are hopeful Congress could take up a discharge petition that would force the House to take a vote on a bill that would overturn Trump's March order. Though Democrat-led, the bill has also secured seven GOP co-sponsors, enough to pass the House if it was brought to the floor. Two Republicans have also backed the discharge petition effort: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.). 'I know that everyone who co-sponsored this legislation, no matter their party, did so because they know workers' rights are worth defending. They know that when workers collectively bargain, the result is a fairer workplace with dignity and respect. They know this order undermines core American values and leaves workers open to unfair treatment and political interference,' Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who is leading the legislation, said in a press conference highlighting the effort. 'If every member who signed onto this bill shows the courage of their convictions and joins us, we can overturn this union-busting executive order.'
Los Angeles Times
07-08-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift limits on ICE's ‘roving patrols'
The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to free up its mass deportation efforts across Southern California Thursday, seeking to lift a ban on 'roving patrols' implemented after a lower court found such tactics likely violate the 4th Amendment. The restrictions, initially handed down in a July 11 order, bar masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Los Angeles and cities in seven other counties without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles found in her original decision. The Trump administration said in its appeal to the high court that Frimpong's ruling, upheld last week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 'threatens to upend immigration officials' ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop.' Lawyers behind the lawsuits challenging the immigration tactics immediately questioned the Trump administration's arguments. 'This is unprecedented,' said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. 'The brief is asking the Supreme Court to bless open season on anybody on Los Angeles who happens to be Latino.' The move comes barely 24 hours after heavily-armed Border Patrol agents snared workers outside a Westlake Home Depot after popping out of the back of a Penske moving truck — actions some experts said appeared to violate the court's order. If the Supreme Court takes up the case, many now think similar aggressive and seemingly indiscriminate enforcement actions could once again become the norm. 'Anything having to do with law enforcement and immigration, the Supreme Court seems to be giving the president free reign,' said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law and a prominent scholar of the country's highest court. 'I think the court is going to side with the Trump administration.' The Department of Justice has repeatedly argued that the temporary restraining order causes 'manifest irreparable harm' to the government. Officials are especially eager to see it overturned because California's Central District is the single most populous in the country, and home to a plurality of undocumented immigrants. In its Supreme Court petition, the Justice Department alleged that roughly 10% of the region's residents are in the U.S. illegally. 'According to estimates from Department of Homeland Security data, nearly 4 million illegal aliens are in California, and nearly 2 million are in the Central District of California. Los Angeles County alone had an estimated 951,000 illegal aliens as of 2019—by far the most of any county in the United States,' the petition said. President Trump made mass deportations a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, and has poured billions in federal funding and untold political capital into the arrest, incarceration and removal of migrants. Though DOJ lawyers told the appellate court there was no policy or quota, administration officials and those involved in planing its deportation operations have repeatedly cited 3,000 arrests a day and a million deportations a year as objectives. District and appellate courts have stalled, blocked, and sometimes reversed many of those efforts in recent weeks, forcing the return of a Maryland father mistakenly deported to Salvadoran prison, compelling the release of student protesters from ICE detention, preserving birthright citizenship for children of immigrant parents and stopping construction of Alligator Alcatraz. But little of the President's immigration agenda has so far been tested in the Supreme Court. If the outcome is unfavorable for Trump, some observers wonder whether he will let the justices limit his agenda. 'Even if they were to lose in the Supreme Court, I have serious doubts they will stop,' Segall said.
The Hill
02-08-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Federal judges side with Trump on ending union bargaining for federal workers
A federal appeals court on Friday sided with the Trump administration, lifting a temporary block on a March executive order that prevented government workers from union bargaining. The three judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs argument alleging Trump issued the order on the basis of retaliation. Instead, the panel comprised of one appointee of former President Obama and two Trump appointees said the president 'would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct.' A lower court ruling issued by U.S. District Judge James Donato previously prevented 21 agencies from implementing the leader's March executive order, siding with plaintiffs comprised of six labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal employee union. A separate judge in Waco, Texas denied the Trump administration's 'power to rescind or repudiate' collective bargaining agreements across numerous agencies in late July. However, on Friday, the appeals court upheld the president's order citing the agencies excluded from union bargaining have 'primary functions implicating national security' and cannot be subject to the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, a law that established bargaining rights for most federal workers in 1978. 'President Trump's latest executive order is a disgraceful and retaliatory attack on the rights of hundreds of thousands of patriotic American civil servants—nearly one-third of whom are veterans—simply because they are members of a union that stands up to his harmful policies,' National President Everett Kelley said in a March statement in response to Trump's order. 'This administration's bullying tactics represent a clear threat not just to federal employees and their unions, but to every American who values democracy and the freedoms of speech and association. Trump's threat to unions and working people across America is clear: fall in line or else,' she added. The Friday order urged the federal government to refrain from ending collective bargaining agreements until 'litigation has concluded.' A 2024 report from the labor union found that one in every two new federal employees joined a union. It also found that almost a third of federal employees are union members in comparison to 6 percent in the private sector.
Los Angeles Times
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Chokeholds, bikers and ‘roving patrols': Are Trump's ICE tactics legal?
An appellate court appears poised to side with the federal judge who blocked immigration agents from conducting 'roving patrols' and snatching people off the streets of Southern California, likely setting up another Supreme Court showdown. Arguments in the case were held Monday before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the judges at times fiercely questioning the lawyer for the Trump administration about the constitutionality of seemingly indiscriminate sweeps by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents. 'I'm just try ing to understand what would motivate the officers ...to grab such a large number of people so quickly and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain,' said Judge Ronald M. Gould of Seattle. Earlier this month, a lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order that has all but halted the aggressive operations by masked federal agents, saying they violate the 4th Amendment. The Justice Department called the block that was ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong 'the first step' in a 'wholesale judicial usurpation' of federal authority. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov M. Roth argued Monday. 'We don't think that happened, and we don't think it's fair we were hit with this sweeping injunction on an unfair and incomplete record.' That argument appeared to falter in front of the 9th Circuit panel. Judges Jennifer Sung of Portland and Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco heard the case alongside Gould — all drawn from the liberal wing of an increasingly split appellate division. 'If you're not actually doing what the Distinct Court found you to be doing and enjoined you from doing, then there should be no harm,' Sung said. Frimpong's order stops agents from using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The judge found that without other evidence, those criteria alone or in combination do not meet the 4th Amendment bar for reasonable suspicion. 'It appears that they are randomly selecting Home Depots where people are standing looking for jobs and car washes because they're car washes,' Judge Berzon said. 'Is your argument that it's ok that it's happening, or is your argument that it's not happening?' Roth largely sidestepped that question, reiterating throughout the 90-minute hearing that the government had not had enough time to gather evidence it was following the Constitution and that the court did not have authority to constrain it in the meantime. Arguments in the case hinge on a pair of dueling Golden State cases that together define the scope of relief courts can offer under the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'It's the bulwark of privacy protection against policing,' said professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford Law School, whose work on 4th Amendment injunctions was cited in the Justice Department's briefing. 'What the government can do depends on really specific details. That makes it hard for a court to say here's the thing you can't do.' In policing cases, every exception to the rule has its own exceptions, the expert said. The Department of Justice has staked its claim largely on City of Los Angeles vs. Lyons, a landmark 1983 Supreme Court decision about illegal chokeholds by the Los Angeles Police Department. In that case, the court ruled against a blanket ban on the practice, finding the Black motorist who had sued was unlikely to ever be choked by the cops again. 'That dooms plaintiffs' standing here,' the Justice Department wrote. But the American Civil Liberties Union and its partners point to other precedents, including the San Diego biker case Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. vs. Hannigan. Decided in the 9th Circuit in 1996, the ruling offers residents of the American West more 4th Amendment protection than they might have in Texas, New York or Illinois. In the Easyriders case, 14 members of a Southland motorcycle club successfully blocked the California Highway Patrol from citing almost any bikers they suspected of wearing the wrong kind of helmet, after the court ruled a more narrow decision would leave the same bikers vulnerable to future illegal citations. 'The court said these motorcyclists are traveling around the state, so we can't afford the plaintiff's complete relief unless we allow this injunction to be statewide,' said professor Geoffrey Kehlmann, who directs the 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic at Loyola Law School. 'In situations like this where you have roving law enforcement throughout a large area and you have the plaintiffs themselves moving throughout this large area, you necessarily need to have that broader injunction,' Kehlmann said. Frimpong cited Easyriders among other precedent cases in her ruling, saying it offered a clear logic for the districtwide injunction. The alternative — agents sweeping through car washes and Home Depot parking lots stopping to ask each person they grab if they are a plaintiff in the suit — 'would be a fantasy,' she wrote. Another expert, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the Los Angeles Police Department chokehold case set a standard that litigants 'need to show it's likely it could happen to you again in the future.' But, he added: 'The 9th Circuit has said, here's ways you can show that.' The tests can include asking whether the contested enforcement is limited to a small geographic area or applied to a small group of people, and whether it is part of a policy. 'After the injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said 'we're going to continue doing what we're doing,'' Berzon said. 'Is that not a policy?' Roth denied that there was any official policy driving the sweeps. 'Plaintiffs [argue] the existence of an official policy of violating the 4th Amendment with these stops,' Roth said. 'The only evidence of our policy was a declaration that said, 'Yes, reasonable suspicion is what we require when we go beyond a consensual encounter.'' But Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California, part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests, argued that the federal policy is clear. 'They have said, 'If it ends in handcuffs, go out and do it,'' he told the panel. 'There's been a wink and a nod to agents on the ground that says, 'Dispatch with the rigors of the law and go out and snatch anybody out there.'' He said that put his organization's clients in a similar situation to the bikers. 'The government did not present any alternatives as to what an injunction could look like that would provide adequate relief to our plaintiffs,' Tajsar said. 'That's fatal to any attempt by them to try to get out from underneath this injunction.' The Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics, he said, are 'likely to ensnare just as many people with status as without status.' The Justice Department said ICE already complies with the 4th Amendment, and that the injunction risks a 'chilling effect' on lawful arrests. 'If it's chilling ICE from violating the Constitution, that's where they're supposed to be chilled,' Chemerinsky said. A ruling is expected as soon as this week. Roth signaled the administration is likely to appeal if the appellate panel does not grant its stay.
