TSA Union Wins Injunction Against Noem’s Directive \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking DHS Secretary Kristi Noem from voiding a collective bargaining agreement for TSA workers. The court found strong evidence of retaliation and due process violations. The union calls it a major victory for worker rights and constitutional protections.
Quick Looks
- Judge Marsha Pechman halts DHS plan to end TSA union deal
- Ruling says action likely retaliatory and violates due process
- DHS memo abruptly canceled seven-year union contract in February
- Union accused DHS of targeting it for political opposition
- Court: TSA workers face “irreparable harm” without agreement
- DHS cited “management style”; judge calls action arbitrary
- Union protections include safety, scheduling, and grievance resolution
- Pechman says workers’ First and Fifth Amendment rights at risk
- Lawsuit part of broader union resistance to Trump-era policy
- DOJ declines comment on ruling; union vows to continue fight
Deep Look
In a pivotal decision for federal labor rights, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman issued a preliminary injunction Monday to prevent Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from dissolving a collective bargaining agreement between the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and its union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
The injunction halts Noem’s controversial directive, issued on February 27, that abruptly terminated a seven-year agreement ratified just months earlier in May 2023. The move, which also sought to erase all pending union grievances, triggered widespread criticism and legal action from AFGE, which represents over 45,000 TSA officers nationwide.
Judge Pechman ruled that allowing the contract to be voided while litigation is ongoing would cause “irreparable harm” to TSA workers. The agreement, she wrote, safeguards workers’ rights in areas not protected under traditional federal labor laws—such as unsafe working conditions, unpredictable scheduling, and lack of access to arbitration.
In her order, Pechman said the union demonstrated that the DHS action likely constituted retaliation for AFGE’s refusal to support recent federal workforce policies aligned with the Trump administration. “AFGE is likely to succeed in showing that Secretary Noem’s decision was arbitrary and capricious,” Pechman wrote.
Pechman also cited serious constitutional concerns. The union argued the cancellation violated the First Amendment by punishing AFGE for political speech, and the Fifth Amendment by failing to provide due process. The court agreed there was sufficient merit in those claims to justify immediate intervention.
“This decision is a crucial victory for federal workers and the rule of law,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. “It sends a clear message that the government cannot retaliate against unions for exercising their constitutional rights. We will continue fighting for our members’ dignity and legal protections.”
In court, Abigail Carter, representing AFGE, framed the DHS move as part of a broader political purge. “The administration has made it clear: if you don’t politically align with them, your rights are stripped. That’s not democracy—it’s coercion,” she said. Carter further emphasized that TSA workers lack traditional labor protections and that their collective bargaining agreement serves as their only line of defense against unsafe or unreasonable employment conditions.
The Department of Justice, defending the DHS directive, denied the retaliation claims. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Kipnis argued that the decision to cancel the agreement reflected a “change in management style,” not political targeting.
But Judge Pechman pushed back during oral arguments. “Isn’t this a pattern?” she asked Kipnis. “Unions that oppose the administration’s views are penalized. Those that don’t, keep their rights. Isn’t this the climate the White House has created?”
Pechman also pointed to the long-standing success of previous TSA union contracts, noting that prior managers repeatedly renewed the agreements, citing their value in creating a satisfied, secure workforce. “They found that unionized workplaces fostered happier, more productive employees,” Pechman said. “What’s changed is not the union—but the administration’s attitude toward it.”
The DHS memo came just days after AFGE filed a separate lawsuit challenging the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) move to fire probationary federal workers—many of whom are union members. A judge issued a temporary restraining order on that effort the same day Noem’s memo was released, further raising suspicions of coordinated retaliation.
Kipnis contended that changing or ending contracts falls within the administration’s discretion. “The statute gives them the right to manage their workforce as they see fit,” he said. But Pechman was unconvinced, responding, “The issue is not whether you can manage differently, but whether this abrupt cancellation was reasonable or legally justified. I’m struggling to see how this isn’t retaliatory.”
In her final ruling, Pechman emphasized that the harm to TSA workers extended beyond wages. “These are not just financial losses,” she wrote. “This includes the loss of critical safety protections, grievance mechanisms, and the right to collectively demand workplace standards—protections that are not replicable through individual negotiation.”
The injunction stands as a major victory for labor advocates, many of whom see it as a bellwether for broader legal battles over union rights under the current federal administration. While the Department of Justice declined to comment on the ruling, the case is likely to proceed through further litigation and could potentially reach higher courts.
For now, the TSA contract remains intact, and the AFGE is preparing to defend its position in what it calls a landmark legal fight for constitutional and labor protections.
TSA Union Wins TSA Union Wins
You must Register or Login to post a comment.