AFT, AFGE, AFSCME File Expanded Lawsuit Over Shutdown Firings — Why It Matters for Educators

Sign at the June rally outside of Sen. Ted Cruz’s Dallas office. Delegates to the Texas AFT biennial convention joined with AFGE members and community activists to speak out against Cruz’s support for gutting the Department of Education. Photo by Brooke Jonsson, CCR Studios. 

In late October, a coalition of major labor unions — including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and AFT — filed an amended lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to terminate or force furloughs of federal workers amid the current government shutdown.

The suit argues that the administration’s plan to use the shutdown as cover for mass firings without proper funding or legal basis violates the Antideficiency Act, unfairly punishes federal workers, and undermines the non-partisan civil service. In a related ruling, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction halting further reductions in-force (RIFs) for the duration of the litigation.

For educators and school-related workers represented by AFT, this isn’t just a federal workforce issue: it is a warning shot about how unions and collective rights can be targeted in broader political attacks. Even though many AFT members work in pre-K-12 or higher education rather than federal employment, the legal precedent being set here can have ripple effects for labor rights, public-service protections, and the rule of law in education settings.

What the lawsuit does and what’s at stake 

The lawsuit seeks to block any further firings or forced unpaid work of federal employees in agencies covered by the complaint. The amended filing on Oct. 17 extended coverage to members of other unions (such as the National Federation of Federal Employees, National Association of Government Employees, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers). 

Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California extended a stay and issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 28 that blocks the administration from issuing further RIFs under the shutdown scheme. 

If the case is ultimately successful, it could affirm robust protections for public-service workers against being collateral damage in shutdowns and set a floor for how unions defend members when administrations attempt to exploit fiscal crises as leverage. On the flip side, if the court rules against the unions, it could open the door to more aggressive reductions, weakened bargaining rights, and a chilling effect on union representation. 

Why this matters for AFT members 

• Labor rights and contract protections: Though many AFT members are not federal employees, the strategy of the administration here in using shutdowns, furloughs, and “excepted work” labels to sidestep union protections could be imported into state or local contexts. 

• Precedent for public-service workers: A ruling in favor of unions would reinforce the principle that public-service employees cannot be used as political leverage. A loss could weaken that safeguard. 

• Union strategy and solidarity: The fact that AFT joined with AFGE, AFSCME and others underscore that education unions are part of a broader coalition defending public service. The effort also shows the value of cross-sector solidarity in major legal fights. 

• Member awareness: For educators, this case serves as a reminder to stay alert for possible overreach (be it in layoffs, contract changes, or funding cuts) that might echo the legal issues raised here. 

Key AFT-Led / AFT-Involved Lawsuits 

Below is a quick reference list of recent significant lawsuits that AFT has led or joined this year.