Federal Workforce Lawsuit Tracker 2026: 11 Cases to Watch

Last Updated: October 11, 2026

Updated October 11, 2026: BOP union contract case (D. Conn. 3

): the unions moved for contempt Oct 6, BOP issued a new termination memo Oct 7, and Judge Oliver set an in-person hearing for Tuesday, Oct 13 at 4 pm in Hartford. No ruling yet. EPA case (D. Mass. 1): assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs, summons returns filed Oct 8, no preliminary injunction motion on the docket entries reviewed through Oct 9. VA case: see the tracker row.

Update, September 27, 2026: Three developments. AFGE v. OMB (3

, N.D. Cal.), the shutdown-RIF case: on September 25 the parties filed a joint motion to hold the case in abeyance under a settlement (Dkt. 198). They asked the court to hold the case in abeyance until the earlier of December 31, 2026 or enactment of FY2027 appropriations for all agency defendants, and then dismiss it with prejudice. That is a request until the court rules on it. FedTools could not retrieve the signed settlement agreement, so we are not reporting its specific deadlines or scope until we can read it. Mullady v. OMB: the government's response to the amended complaint is due on a modified briefing schedule the court set September 17 (ECF 46); as of October 5 nothing has been filed. Entry 47 is one plaintiff's voluntary dismissal. Nothing in entries 45–47 concerns class certification. FLRA: on Tuesday, September 22, the Authority issued a 2-1 decision in an arbitration-exceptions case over employee discipline at the Marine Corps installation at Twentynine Palms, California, dismissing management's exceptions for lack of jurisdiction because the Defense Department is covered by the collective-bargaining executive orders; as Government Executive reported on September 23, NTEU then told the D.C. Circuit that the decision shows unions cannot get relief at the FLRA and that the fight belongs in court. That is NTEU's argument, not the Authority's holding, and the majority said it was not weighing the orders' legality. FedTools has not reviewed the decision text, so treat the characterization as reported.

Correction, September 23, 2026: Earlier versions of this tracker said a Mullady summary-judgment hearing was held September 1 and that a class-certification motion was due September 21. The docket (PACER text via the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, case 47843, entries 1 through 46) shows neither: the preliminary injunction was denied July 27, an amended complaint was filed August 25, and the case sits at the pleadings stage. We regret the error.

Update, September 4, 2026: Judge Illston ruled September 2 that the USDA reorganization claims "do not belong in this case" and must be filed as a separate lawsuit. That is a procedural denial of the preliminary injunction, not a ruling on whether the reorganization is a RIF in disguise. Relocations and the September 30 separation deadline proceed with no injunction in effect in this case. [Update Oct 5: a separate case, AFGE v. USDA, later imposed an administrative stay for specified employees; that stay covered September 30 and was extended on October 2 through October 13.] In an August 28 sworn declaration in AFGE v. Trump, a USDA official said 64% of the 725 employees who had received management directed reassignment letters had accepted; AFGE calls that figure inflated, since an employee must accept to request a hardship exemption. [Corrected Sept 23: no Mullady v. OMB summary-judgment hearing occurred; see correction above.] Separately, MSPB finalized the rule ending mandatory Douglas-factor review on September 3, effective October 5.

Update, September 2, 2026: OPM's RIF-appeals, suitability, probationary, and performance rules took effect today with no injunction. The four-union challenge to the suitability and performance rules (AFGE, NFFE, IFPTE, AFSCME v. OPM, N.D. Cal., filed August 25) is now the ninth case on this board; our brief explains what it challenges. The USDA reorganization case had its second preliminary-injunction hearing September 1, and the judge did not rule from the bench. [Corrected Sept 23: Mullady v. OMB had no summary-judgment hearing; see correction above.] Reading Time: 9 min

Your job protections in 2026 are being decided in courtrooms, not in HR memos. This tracker follows eleven matters, including decided cases with continuing consequences. Together they will determine who can fire you, who hears your appeal, whether your union contract exists, and whether a reorganization can move you across the country to make you quit.

Case by Case: What's Actually at Stake

USDA reorganization: the "RIF in disguise" test case

Unions and 29 other plaintiffs (cities, counties, nonprofits) filed a supplemental complaint on July 1 in an existing Northern District of California case, armed with USDA's own internal documents showing the agency expects a "significant number" of employees to refuse relocation and is counting on those refusals to hit its 23% reduction target.

The legal question: can an agency achieve a reduction in force through geographic reassignment, without the notice, retention-register, and severance protections that RIF law requires? The court denied the injunction request in this case on September 2. A separate case, AFGE v. USDA, then produced an administrative stay for employees in specified USDA components. That stay covered September 30 and was extended on October 2 through October 13. Our USDA lawsuit explainer and relocation decision guide cover the employee decisions in detail, and if separation reaches you, the Severance Pay Calculator shows what an involuntary exit pays.

NTEU's telework-accommodation suit: the backlog as a legal violation

Filed June 29 against the IRS, Treasury, and HHS, this case argues that leaving disability and medical telework accommodation requests unprocessed, more than 6,500 at Treasury and 9,000 at HHS, is itself unlawful. No hearing is scheduled yet. Settlement talks have been reported, so this one could resolve quietly; if terms emerge, they'd set the template for accommodation backlogs government-wide.

AFGE v. FLRA: the one employees have already won

Chief Judge Casper vacated the FLRA's union-election rule on June 29, restoring career Regional Directors' authority over election petitions and certifications. The FLRA's stay and reconsideration motions, filed July 6, are the open thread. Full breakdown, including what happens to petitions filed while the vacated rule was live, in our FLRA ruling guide.

Jackler v. DOJ: the sleeper with the biggest blast radius

Two fired immigration judges challenged their removals; the MSPB upheld the firings in March on the theory that immigration judges are "inferior officers" the president can remove at will under Article II. The Federal Circuit took the case en banc on June 17, a rare full-court review. The appellants' opening brief came due July 14 under a no-extensions order; the government's response follows within 45 days, with argument expected in the fall.

Why it matters beyond immigration judges: if Article II removal power overrides civil-service adverse-action protections for one category of career adjudicator, the same logic reaches administrative judges and potentially far wider. This is the case that could redraw who gets an MSPB appeal at all. The real trigger moment is the ruling, likely months away; we'll update this row when argument is scheduled.

AFGE/NFFE v. DoD: the contract-termination fight

Twenty AFGE locals and three NFFE locals sued DoD in Maryland on July 2 over Secretary Hegseth's April 9 memo terminating hundreds of collective bargaining agreements. The theory is the same one that won the FLRA case: an unexplained policy U-turn violates the Administrative Procedure Act. On July 22 the unions filed a preliminary-injunction motion asking the court to restore the terminated contracts while the case proceeds; the case sits with Judge Stephanie Gallagher, the same judge hearing Mullady v. OMB, and a briefing schedule is pending. A granted injunction here would be the first order restoring canceled federal CBAs government-wide. Background and what still protects DoD civilians contract-or-no-contract: our lawsuit brief and the survival guide.

DHS/Interior probationary appeal: were mass firings really RIFs?

Roughly 2,000 fired probationary employees at DHS and Interior, represented by Gupta Wessler, filed their opening brief at the Federal Circuit on July 7. The argument: when an agency terminates probationers en masse for budget reasons rather than individual performance, that is a reduction in force, and RIFs come with MSPB review rights that probationary "performance" terminations do not. The government's response is due September 25, which puts a ruling in late 2026 at the earliest. What it means for you: if the Federal Circuit agrees, mass probationary terminations across government would retroactively carry appeal rights, and the "probationers have no recourse" assumption that shaped the 2025-2026 cuts would be gone.

Trump v. Slaughter: the decided case that shadows everything

On June 29 the Supreme Court overruled Humphrey's Executor (1935) by a 6-3 vote, holding that presidents may remove heads of independent agencies without cause (the Federal Reserve was expressly carved out in a companion case). No federal employee's rights changed that day. But the referees changed: the MSPB, FLRA, and OSC, the bodies that adjudicate everything else on this page, now operate under at-will removal. Expect downstream litigation as agencies test the ruling's edges.

Schedule P/C: three suits, no ruling yet

At least three separate challenges (NTEU, AFGE, and Government Accountability Project with NARFE) target the June 3 executive order placing roughly 8,000 positions into Schedule Policy/Career, stripping their adverse-action protections. No court has reached the merits. Until one does, reclassified employees' practical situation is what it is; our Schedule P/C coverage tracks the employee-level decisions.

Mullady v. OMB: the broadest political-RIF test

One hundred forty-two former career employees from HHS, OMB, OPM, FDA, CDC, ACF, and DOGE sued in February 2026, arguing their reductions in force were politically motivated, built on inaccurate personnel records, and left them with an MSPB appeal process too hollowed out to count as due process. The claims run through the Fifth Amendment, the APA, and the Privacy Act, and the plaintiffs want reinstatement plus damages. The preliminary injunction was denied July 27. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint August 25, and the original motion to dismiss was terminated as moot after the amended complaint. As of October 5 the government's response to that complaint remains pending on a modified schedule the court set September 17. If the court finds the MSPB route constitutionally inadequate, every RIF'd career employee gains a potential path to district court instead.

How to Read This as an Employee

Three principles keep the doom-scrolling in check:

Nothing on this page has changed your rights yet. RIF procedures, severance eligibility, and MSPB appeals all operate under existing law while cases are pending. Decisions you make now (signing forms, accepting relocations, taking buyouts) matter more than any pending ruling.

Watch hearing dates, not filing dates. Lawsuits get filed weekly; rulings change things. The next date to watch is October 13, the last day of the USDA relocation stay.

The structural cases compound. Slaughter weakens the boards; Jackler tests whether board protection applies at all; the Schedule P/C suits test how many jobs sit outside it. Track them together, which is the point of this page.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which lawsuit matters most for ordinary federal employees?

Jackler v. DOJ has the broadest reach. If the Federal Circuit's en banc ruling holds that career adjudicators are 'inferior officers' removable at will under Article II, the logic could strip MSPB appeal rights from wide swaths of the civil service, far beyond the two immigration judges who brought the case.

When is the next big date on the calendar?

Mullady v. OMB is back at the pleadings stage: the preliminary injunction was denied July 27, an amended complaint was filed August 25, and the government's response is due under a September 17 extension. No summary-judgment hearing or class-certification motion is on the docket as of October 5. The September 2 USDA injunction request failed in the original case on procedural grounds. A separate case imposed an administrative stay for specified employees; that stay covered September 30 and was extended on October 2 through October 13. MSPB's final rule ending mandatory Douglas-factor review took effect October 5, 2026.

Did federal employees win or lose the FLRA election case?

Won, for now. A judge vacated the rule that gave political appointees control of union elections on June 29, 2026, restoring career Regional Directors' authority. But the FLRA filed stay and reconsideration motions on July 6 that are still pending, so the win is not final.

What did Trump v. Slaughter change?

The Supreme Court's June 29, 2026 decision overruled Humphrey's Executor, letting presidents remove leaders of independent agencies at will. It doesn't directly change any employee's rights, but it weakens the structural independence of the MSPB, FLRA, and OSC, the bodies that enforce those rights, and it shapes every other case on this tracker.

How often is this tracker updated?

Whenever a tracked case produces a ruling, a filing, or a new scheduled date. Check the changelog at the bottom for the latest revision. If a case you're watching is missing, it either has no scheduled 2026 activity or hasn't produced a substantive filing yet.

Related Resources

• Severance Pay Calculator: What an involuntary separation actually pays, before you make decisions under pressure.
• FLRA Union Election Rule Struck Down: The full guide to the one case employees have won so far.
• USDA's RIF-in-Disguise Lawsuit: The test case for reorganization-by-relocation.
• VERA/VSIP Fall 2026 Agency Tracker: The companion tracker for buyout and early-out offers.

Changelog: 2026-10-11: added the BOP (D. Conn.) and VA (D.R.I.) rows; EPA judge assigned and summons returns filed Oct 8. 2026-10-05: Mullady docket re-checked through ECF 47; no response to the amended complaint yet; past-date FAQ items updated; added AFGE Council 238 v. EPA (filed Sept 30, as reported by GovExec). 2026-10-08: corrected the EPA filing date to Sept 29 (docket stamp; No. 1

). 2026-09-23: Corrected Mullady v. OMB status (PI denied Jul 27; amended complaint Aug 25; no SJ hearing or class-cert motion on the docket); updated next-date FAQ. 2026-07-19: Added Mullady v. OMB (8, D. Md.) as the eighth tracked case; PI hearing July 20; updated next-date FAQ. 2026-07-12: Tracker launched with seven matters.

Sources: GovExec, Federal News Network, AFGE filings, Federal Circuit docket 26-1575, Rise Up Federal Workers Legal Defense Network litigation tracker. Case numbers: 1

(D. Mass.), 1 (D.D.C.), 1 (D. Md.), 8 (D. Md.). Mullady sourcing: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse case 47843.