Legal Roundup - July 27 – August 7, 2026

Posted On: Aug 17, 2026

July 27 – August 7, 2026

Your biweeklyâ€¯updateâ€¯on NTEU-related litigation challenging the administration's attacks on federal employees. These emails only include cases with notable updates. To see the current status of other key cases we track in Legal Update, click here.

NTEU First Amendment Challenge to IRS Ban on NTEU Materials in All Offices
On June 16, NTEU filed a lawsuit in D.C. federal district court because the IRS was removing NTEU materials—and NTEU materials only—from common workplace areas and employee workstations. This violates the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint discrimination and the First Amendment’s protection of union members to freely associate. On June 24, NTEU filed a preliminary injunction motion asking the court to immediately order the IRS to stop enforcing its ban on NTEU materials. On June 30, the IRS agreed to comply with NTEU’s requests in its preliminary injunction motion while the case continues. This included the agency’s agreement to voluntarily stop enforcing the ban on NTEU materials and to notify NTEU in advance if it planned to restart enforcement of the previous ban or any related, updated policy. NTEU’s updated complaint, filed July 16, also challenges the IRS’s block on messages from the @nteu.org domain from the agency’s email system and the block on access to NTEU’s website from IRS computer systems.

UPDATE: On August 4, 2026, the IRS told the Court it was permanently rescinding its previous policy targeting NTEU materials in the workplace, but was issuing a new one that still restricts some materials in common areas and in workstations. NTEU is conferring with the agency on the intended scope of this new policy.

Challenge to IRS Immunity Order
NEW CASE: On August 6, NTEU joined a lawsuit in Virginia federal district court to challenge provisions of a Department of Justice order implementing a settlement that broadly grants immunity to the President, his family, and his family's business interests from tax audits. While other aspects of the settlement had previously been challenged in this lawsuit—and been subject of emergency relief that the district court granted—no claim had been brought against the sweeping tax auditing provisions that are widely believed to be illegal. The unlawful provisionsâ€¯require NTEU members to place themselves in an impossible position: defy a direct order and risk losing their job or carry out the illegal directive and violate their oath of office.

NTEU FOIA Lawsuit Against OPM
NTEU filed a lawsuit on November 14, 2025 because the administration failed to disclose lists of federal positions to be moved to Schedule Policy/Career, as required by the Freedom of Information Act. The government responded to NTEU that it has responsive documents, but is withholding them in full because they are allegedly privileged. On June 10, we asked the court to rule that FOIA entitles us to lists of federal positions to be moved to Schedule Policy/Career. NTEU’s brief asks the Court to reject the government's claims that it can withhold those documents.

UPDATE: OPM responded to our brief on July 16. We filed our reply brief on August 5.

NTEU Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Precedent Regarding Access to Court
NTEU filed a brief with the Supreme Court on June 8 urging it to reverse a line of “channeling” cases that the government has used to try and keep NTEU out of court. The government has argued, for example, that NTEU should not be allowed to proceed in court for its Exclusions Order litigation, our mass firing litigation, the litigation over the administration’s attempts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and our Schedule Policy/Career litigation. NTEU’s brief argues that the Supreme Court should use this case to overrule its earlier channeling cases.

UPDATE: Oral argument in this case is now scheduled for October 5, 2026.

AFGE’s Challenge to Government-Wide Mass RIFs & FNA Reorganization
A lower court blocked RIFs at many agencies, but the Supreme Court stayed that order. Beginning in February 2026, AFGE and its fellow plaintiffs challenged planned cuts at FEMA through a new complaint, preliminary injunction motion, and discovery proceedings.

On July 1, the plaintiffs in the case filed a new challenge to the USDA’s planned reorganization, which would negatively impact NTEU bargaining-unit employees at the Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA, formerly FNS). The plaintiffs asked the judge to halt the reorganization while the parties dispute whether it is legal. The district judge has scheduled a hearing to consider the plaintiffs’ requests for September 1. NTEU members at FNA supported this new challenge by providing critical facts and evidence, through sworn declarations, regarding FNA’s actions so far. While NTEU is not a party to this lawsuit, the relief that is being requested—and that NTEU members’ declarations support—would benefit our FNA members.

UPDATE: On August 7, the plaintiffs filed their reply to the USDA’s response to the reorganization challenge. NTEU members at FNA again supported the legal challenge by providing sworn declarations for the judge’s consideration.

AFGE VA Exclusions Challenge in Rhode Island
AFGE filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Rhode Island on behalf of several locals at Veterans Affairs after the agency terminated their contract under the March 2025 Exclusions Executive Order. On March 13, the judge granted the locals’ request for a preliminary injunction. The VA appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On May 16, a three-judge panel at the First Circuit denied the government’s request to pause the injunction while the Court considers the government’s appeal.

UPDATE: In response to the VA’s claim that the contract would terminate on August 8, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction with the district judge on July 28. The judge held a hearing on the motion on August 7. On the same day, she granted the plaintiffs’ motion. The judge agreed with the plaintiffs that under its original terms, the contract has now automatically extended to remain in effect while the parties negotiate a new agreement.