Can DHS SHRED Contracts? Judge Says NOT YET

A federal judge has blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s attempt to strip collective bargaining rights from thousands of TSA officers, calling it likely retaliation against federal workers.

At a Glance

• U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman issued a preliminary injunction against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to terminate TSA workers’ collective bargaining rights
• The judge cited potential retaliation and violations of Due Process and the Administrative Procedure Act
• The ruling protects a seven-year contract affecting approximately 50,000 TSA agents responsible for airport security
• The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) celebrated the decision as a victory for federal workers’ rights

Judge Halts DHS Secretary’s Move Against TSA Union

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman has temporarily blocked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to terminate collective bargaining rights for Transportation Security Administration employees. The preliminary injunction preserves union representation for approximately 50,000 TSA agents who staff airport security checkpoints nationwide. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents these workers, filed the lawsuit challenging Secretary Noem’s determination that would have effectively nullified their seven-year labor agreement.

In her ruling, Judge Pechman stated the decision to revoke these rights appeared to be retaliatory and legally flawed. The court found that DHS likely violated both constitutional due process protections and federal administrative law by attempting to unilaterally cancel the existing labor agreement without proper notice or opportunity for resolution. The judge’s decision maintains the status quo while the case proceeds through the legal system.

Retaliatory Motives Cited in Court Decision

Judge Pechman’s ruling highlighted serious concerns about the motivation behind Secretary Noem’s determination. 

The court found substantial evidence suggesting the action was intended as punishment against the union for opposing administration policies affecting federal workers. This conclusion formed a key basis for granting the preliminary injunction, with the judge noting that government agencies cannot penalize organizations for exercising their legal rights to challenge official decisions.

According to the U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman: “AFGE has demonstrated a strong likelihood that the Noem Determination constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration’s assault on federal workers. AFGE has shown the Noem Determination likely violates Due Process, having afforded no notice or process for AFGE and its members to work with DHS and TSA to resolve any disagreement before simply shredding the contractual promises of the CBA [collective bargaining agreement]”.

DHS had claimed the union was misrepresenting TSA workers and alleged an imbalance between union activities and passenger screening duties. AFGE strongly disputed these characterizations, presenting evidence that the department’s decision disregarded factual information about the union’s operations and representation activities. The judge found the department’s reasoning lacked substantial supporting evidence.

Victory for Federal Workers’ Rights

Union leadership celebrated the ruling as an important affirmation of federal workers’ rights and protections. The court decision prevents what could have been an immediate disruption to established labor practices at airports nationwide. AFGE officials emphasized that the ruling reinforces the principle that federal agencies must honor contractual commitments and follow proper procedures when seeking changes to established labor agreements.

The injunction specifically preserves the collective bargaining agreement reached in 2024, which Judge Pechman noted had been completely disregarded in the department’s determination. The ruling found that Secretary Noem’s decision appeared to mischaracterize the union’s role and failed to account for existing contractual obligations between the parties. The court determined these deficiencies likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires reasoned decision-making by federal agencies.

Implications for Airport Security Operations

While the legal battle continues, TSA operations at airports nationwide will proceed under the existing labor agreement. The ruling ensures stability for security screening operations during the ongoing litigation. TSA screeners, who are responsible for passenger and baggage screening at approximately 450 commercial airports across the country, will maintain their current working conditions and representation rights under the collective bargaining agreement that DHS had attempted to terminate.

“And AFGE has shown it is likely to succeed in showing the Noem Determination is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly given its complete disregard for the 2024 CBA and its mischaracterization of AFGE’s role.”, said U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman.

The case represents a significant test of executive authority over federal workforce management and the rights of government employee unions. Legal experts note that the court’s emphasis on proper procedures and constitutional protections could influence similar disputes across other federal agencies. As the litigation proceeds, both sides will present additional evidence regarding the legality of the department’s attempted termination of collective bargaining rights for these essential security personnel.