Questions of the Court of Appeal In the judge's decision to block the Trump anti-union arrangement

The two members of a three-judge committee at the U.S. Appeal Court for DC Circuit issued a stay of an injunction in April on Friday, which remove the efforts of the Trump government to remove two thirds of the federal workers of the federal burden of the federal state of the state and to enable the White House to prevent the legal challenge.

Last month, the US district judge Paul Friedman found that President Trump's execution regulation of President Trump, who cited a rarely used provision of the 1978 Reform Act for public services in order to prohibit unions in most federal authorities as part of the guise of national security, as a “pretext” to take care of the deterioration of the National Treasury employee and the working groups, In order to block the stage jobs to draw the president's stage, to draw the efforts to draw the efforts to prevent the prerequisites in order to draw the efforts, and to draw on scrap protection modimes, and to prevent them with scrap protection modimes and protecting for progress. In a separate decision this week, Friedman also blocked the Edict, as does US foreign services that worked under a parallel personnel system with similar trade union rights.

After a appointment of the White House, the judge Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush representative, and Justin Walker, a Trump representative, has a stay in the NEU case, a step that enables the administration to resume the implementation of the order while the committee takes the case into account. The judge J. Michelle Childs, who was appointed by the former President Biden, was resisted on this matter.

The majority of the court wrote that the Trump government will probably gain its appointment on the grounds that the union has not proven that they have suffered the irreparable damage that was issued for an injunction. Money damage alone is generally considered repairable, since the courts can meet cash damage after the conclusion of a lawsuit, and the two judges found that the other claims of NEu due to the Office for HR management guidelines in which authorities were instructed to terminate the legal green-couple-like devices until the administrative administration comparison is concluded.

“The union claims that without an injunction will lose negotiating power and that it will suffer a reputation damage that detaches current and future membership,” wrote the court. “But these damage is speculative because they would only occur after An agency ends a collective agreement, and the government pointed out agencies on the agencies refrain From the termination of collective bargaining or the decertification of negotiation units to the end of the legal dispute. “

As Head of the government Has reported and encouraged OPM in the same memo not to formally terminate the union contracts. The federal authorities have hired these contracts in practice, including the submission of the participation in arbitrated listening of complaints, the cessation of collective bargaining and secretly lifted to stop the collection of union conclusions from the employees of the employees.

The judges also argued that the injunction “is” irreparable damage to the president due to the disability of his national security providers, which were expressly recognized by the congress “.

“The pretended disposal eliminates the president's control over the decision to react to the implementation of the executive regulation and the flexibility to react to future developments, at least without reacting again to the district court,” she wrote. “In other words, the injunction connects the government's hands.”

In their dissent, the child rejected this logic as an attempt to “slide” the government's own irreparable damage barriers.

“In a short paragraph, the government claims that a stay would protect the president's ability to” guarantee the effective operation of the agencies relevant to national security without the restrictions on the collective bargaining, “she wrote.” However, the interim decision of the district court has been in the case of almost half a century. Do not explain why irreparable injuries from this decades of practice result for a short time while we meet the merits of this appeal procedure. ”

And she described an “inconsistency” in the heart of her colleagues and the claims of the White House: An injunction that blocks the implementation of order represents an “irreparable damage”, while the instructions for implementation are supposed to have the agencies.

“The government claims that the NEI does not suffer any irreparable damage to justify the interim decision of the district court and is not violated by a temporary stay in appeal, since according to the FAQ document, the agencies were not recommended that collective bargaining concludes decertification until the negotiations were finally written.” Investigation of the district court can demonstrate in which an already tensioned arrangement of the executive appearance. “