Almost half of U.S. states are challenging an executive order they claim has weakened union representation for thousands of federal employees nationwide.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes joined 22 other state attorneys general in filing a court brief supporting the American Federation of Government Employees. The coalition is challenging a March executive order, arguing that the order violates workers' constitutional rights to free speech and assembly.
Besides Arizona, the coalition is led by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. It includes multiple other officials from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
What the Executive Order Does
The executive order, called "Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs," prevents most federal employees from negotiating collectively for wages and working conditions. The administration cited national security concerns as the reason for the restriction.
However, a White House fact sheet released the same day stated that the targeted unions were viewed as "hostile" to the president's agenda. This statement has become central to the legal challenge.
Court Actions So Far
The federal employees union sued to block the order and won an initial victory. A federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction stopping the order from taking effect.
In a press release, the administration appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A panel of judges temporarily paused the injunction while they considered the appeal. However, another Ninth Circuit judge has called for the full court to review whether the pause was appropriate.
The Coalition's Arguments
The coalition of attorneys general argues that the executive order is actually punishment for unions that have criticized administration policies. They claim this violates First Amendment protections for free speech.
"Silencing workers and stripping away their ability to bargain collectively is unconstitutional and un-American. My office will continue to stand up for the rights of working people." Mayes said.
The states also warn that accepting weak justifications for discriminatory actions could make it harder to prove civil rights violations in future cases. They insist that courts must look at the real reasons behind government actions, not explanations offered after the fact, as stated in the press release.
The case will continue as both sides prepare additional legal arguments in the coming weeks.
