Administration confronted over extensive power to dismantle federal labor organizations by the judiciary

In a move that has sparked controversy and legal challenges, the Trump administration has issued an executive order invoking a provision of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) to exempt wide swathes of the federal government from federal labor laws under the pretext of national security.

Emily Hall, an attorney with the Justice Department, defended the president's actions, asserting that he has broad authority to determine that a function of government is connected to national security. Hall's argument is based on the 'determination' language in the CSRA, which Congress decided to apply, vesting the president with authority to make determinations.

However, not everyone agrees with Hall's interpretation. Paras Shah, the Deputy General Counsel for the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), argued that if the government's broad definition of national security is allowed, it could be used to destroy the entire federal labor statute. Shah filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the government from implementing the order.

The NTEU's lawsuit is not the only challenge to the executive order. In a separate argument, David Friedman, a legal scholar, disputes the idea that agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency or Internal Revenue Service have national security as their primary function. Friedman argues that the term 'primary function' should have a defined meaning and cannot be solely based on the president's statement.

Friedman also argues against the executive order, stating that the president is not bargaining with unions that have sued him or filed grievances. Hall, however, did not agree with Friedman's reading of events but did not provide an alternative interpretation.

The White House fact sheet accompanying the executive order suggests that union resistance to Trump was a motivation for invoking the CSRA's national security exemption. If implemented, the executive order would bar union representation for two-thirds of the federal workforce and 75% of federal employees currently represented by organized labor.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that presidential decisions regarding national security are not suitable for judicial scrutiny. However, the court's ruling in the 1956 case Cole v. Young found that a former federal food inspector was improperly denied a review of their termination due to a lack of a close enough nexus to national security.

During oral arguments, Shah stated that the surreptitious cessation of union dues collections from members' paychecks is costing the union over $2 million per month. The fate of the lawsuit and the executive order remains uncertain, with a decision expected in the coming months.

As the legal battle unfolds, the impact on federal employees and unions could be significant. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future administrations' ability to bypass federal labor laws under the guise of national security.