Appeals Court Allows Trump to End Union Bargaining for Some Federal Workers

[Rightguide]

Appeals Court Allows Trump to End Union Bargaining for Some Federal Workers​

Unions sought to challenge the president’s order ending collective bargaining for employees of government agencies with national security missions.

Aldgra Fredly

8/1/2025|Updated: 8/2/2025

A federal appeals court on Friday paused a lower court injunction that had blocked the Trump administration from ending union bargaining rights for thousands of federal workers at 21 agencies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an emergency stay sought by the administration, putting on hold a preliminary injunction issued by District Judge James Donato in June in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and five other unions representing federal employees.

The unions sought to challenge President Donald Trump’s March 27 executive order, which aimed to eliminate collective bargaining rights for employees of government agencies with national security missions.

In a 15-page decision, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit panel stated that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of the plaintiffs’ retaliation claim, finding that Trump’s order does not, on its face, “express any retaliatory animus.”

“Even assuming that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie claim of retaliation, on this record the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct,” the judges stated.

More here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/ap...m_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily

There should be no unions allowed in the civil service work force.

 

[DeluxAuto]

There should be no unions allowed in the civil service work force.

Why?

 

[Rightguide]

Why?

Allowing unions to represent federal employees creates an inherent conflict of interest that undermines both the integrity and effectiveness of government operations. Unlike private-sector unions, which negotiate with profit-driven companies, federal unions negotiate with taxpayer-funded agencies, meaning they are effectively lobbying the American people for more pay, benefits, and protections without the checks and balances that come from market discipline or competition. I have a few more thoughts on the matter as well.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Allowing unions to represent federal employees creates an inherent conflict of interest that undermines both the integrity and effectiveness of government operations. Unlike private-sector unions, which negotiate with profit-driven companies, federal unions negotiate with taxpayer-funded agencies, meaning they are effectively lobbying the American people for more pay, benefits, and protections without the checks and balances that come from market discipline or competition. I have a few more thoughts on the matter as well.

You voted against the American people's wallet already. Why do you care about unions which are far less damaging to our bank accounts than consumer paid taxes?

 

[Lazaran]

DonOld & the MAGAt republicans:

"Champions of the working class & unions".



The UAW & The Teamsters who supported (tacitly or otherwise) DonOld & the MAGAt republicans should be ashamed.





We. Told. Them. So.

 

[wallstreetguy]

Maybe I was wrong about one thing. I told Trump I would never get sick of winning. But all this winning is like gorging at a Chinese buffet. I need some cold water and a walk...and then I am right back on line for more dumplings!

 

[DanOkeffie]

Allowing unions to represent federal employees creates an inherent conflict of interest that undermines both the integrity and effectiveness of government operations. Unlike private-sector unions, which negotiate with profit-driven companies, federal unions negotiate with taxpayer-funded agencies, meaning they are effectively lobbying the American people for more pay, benefits, and protections without the checks and balances that come from market discipline or competition. I have a few more thoughts on the matter as well.

union have to go. only the indept and lazy want unions

 

[Rightguide]

Trump administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status for more than 60,000 migrants, appeals court rules​

By
Victor Nava
Published Aug. 20, 2025, 11:43 p.m. ET


A federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Trump on Wednesday, allowing his administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal.

In a unanimous decision, the three-member panel of judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals halted a lower court order that had blocked the Trump administration from eliminating temporary deportation protections and revoking work permits from the migrants.

“The government’s motion for a stay pending appeal … is granted,” Circuit Judges Michael Hawkins ( a Bill Clinton appointee), Consuelo Callahan (a George W. Bush appointee) and Eric Miller (Trump appointee) wrote in their brief, two-page ruling, which did not explain the decision.

Last month, San Francisco-based District Judge Trina Thompson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, had paused Trump’s planned elimination of TPS for migrants from the three countries until Nov. 18.

https://nypost.com/2025/08/20/us-ne...more-than-60000-migrants-appeals-court-rules/

More winning in court for Trump.

 

[Rebel5soul]

All this winning is getting tedious.

I want him to rescind EO 10988.

 

[ll74]

Trump administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status for more than 60,000 migrants, appeals court rules​

By
Victor Nava
Published Aug. 20, 2025, 11:43 p.m. ET


A federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Trump on Wednesday, allowing his administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal.

In a unanimous decision, the three-member panel of judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals halted a lower court order that had blocked the Trump administration from eliminating temporary deportation protections and revoking work permits from the migrants.

“The government’s motion for a stay pending appeal … is granted,” Circuit Judges Michael Hawkins ( a Bill Clinton appointee), Consuelo Callahan (a George W. Bush appointee) and Eric Miller (Trump appointee) wrote in their brief, two-page ruling, which did not explain the decision.

Last month, San Francisco-based District Judge Trina Thompson, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, had paused Trump’s planned elimination of TPS for migrants from the three countries until Nov. 18.

https://nypost.com/2025/08/20/us-ne...more-than-60000-migrants-appeals-court-rules/

More winning in court for Trump.

I'm sure that all immigrants who receive protected status are reasured.

 

[dingdongditchding]

DonOld & the MAGAt republicans:

"Champions of the working class & unions".



The UAW & The Teamsters who supported (tacitly or otherwise) DonOld & thenMAGAt republicans should be ashamed.





We. Told. Them. So.

hahahaha

 

[DanOkeffie]

Union are for the inept & lazy

 

[DanOkeffie]

Why?

Why are you a sissy

 

[DanOkeffie]

DonOld & the MAGAt republicans:

"Champions of the working class & unions".



The UAW & The Teamsters who supported (tacitly or otherwise) DonOld & thenMAGAt republicans should be ashamed.





We. Told. Them. So.

Stop being a retarded sissy

 

[DanOkeffie]

Why?

why does anyone need to join a union? when you join a union one needs to get a tattoo on his or her forehead that says "inept lazy democrat"

 

[Rightguide]

Supreme Court lets Trump strip protections from more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants​

by: MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press
Posted: Oct 3, 2025 / 03:46 PM CDT
Updated: Oct 3, 2025 / 03:50 PM CDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to strip legal protections from more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants.

The justices issued an emergency order, which will last as long as the court case continues, putting on hold a lower-court ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco that found the administration had wrongly ended temporary protected status for the Venezuelans. The three liberal justices dissented.

Trump’s Republican administration has moved to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the United States and work legally, including ending TPS for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians who were granted protection under President Joe Biden, a Democrat. TPS is granted in 18-month increments.

In May, the Supreme Court reversed a preliminary order from Chen that affected another 350,000 Venezuelans whose protections expired in April. The high court provided no explanation at the time, which is common in emergency appeals.

“The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court wrote Friday in an unsigned order.

https://fox4kc.com/politics/ap-poli...ns-from-more-than-300000-venezuelan-migrants/

Proving once again that we on the right, and of course the President, have been correct on the law all along. More winning.

 

[ll74]

Welcome to our country refugees, you get 6 months of protections.


Ok...we lied....get the fuck out after three months.

We're the best country

 

[Rightguide]

Welcome to our country refugees, you get 6 months of protections.


Ok...we lied....get the fuck out after three months.

We're the best country

No, the Democrats lied to those people. They broke the laws they were entrusted to enforce. This is why they can never be allowed to have national power again.

 

[ll74]

No, the Democrats lied to those people.

The President extended TPS protections.

They broke the laws they were entrusted to enforce.

He didn't break the law by doing so.

This is why they can never be allowed to have national power again.

yes, because auhoritarians revoke promises that our Country made

 

[Rightguide]

The President extended TPS protections.



He didn't break the law by doing so.


yes, because auhoritarians revoke promises that our Country made

So let’s get this straight, Joe Biden took an oath to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” But instead of enforcing the immigration laws Congress passed, he rewrote them from the Oval Office like a dictator with a pen.

Congress said illegal entrants are supposed to be detained and removed. Biden said, “Nah, let them in.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b): Requires detention of individuals who enter illegally pending proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c): Mandates detention of criminal aliens pending removal. Congress said parole is for rare humanitarian cases. Biden said, “Let’s hand it out by the hundreds of thousands.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A. Congress said protect the border. Biden said, “Come on in, we’ll find you a court date in 2032.”

That’s not “policy.” That’s dereliction of duty. That’s violating the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, the same clause that stops presidents from ignoring laws they don’t like.

 

[ll74]

So let’s get this straight, Joe Biden took an oath to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” But instead of enforcing the immigration laws Congress passed, he rewrote them from the Oval Office like a dictator with a pen.

Congress said illegal entrants are supposed to be detained and removed. Biden said, “Nah, let them in.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b): Requires detention of individuals who enter illegally pending proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c): Mandates detention of criminal aliens pending removal. Congress said parole is for rare humanitarian cases. Biden said, “Let’s hand it out by the hundreds of thousands.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A. Congress said protect the border. Biden said, “Come on in, we’ll find you a court date in 2032.”

That’s not “policy.” That’s dereliction of duty. That’s violating the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, the same clause that stops presidents from ignoring laws they don’t like.

He extended TPS as was his right as President.

The current President went back on that promise to those refugees that were given that promise.

Blame that on your opponents as you need ....the world doesn't give a shit

 

[Rebel5soul]

Appeals Court Allows Trump to End Union Bargaining for Some Federal Workers​

Unions sought to challenge the president’s order ending collective bargaining for employees of government agencies with national security missions.

Aldgra Fredly

8/1/2025|Updated: 8/2/2025

A federal appeals court on Friday paused a lower court injunction that had blocked the Trump administration from ending union bargaining rights for thousands of federal workers at 21 agencies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an emergency stay sought by the administration, putting on hold a preliminary injunction issued by District Judge James Donato in June in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and five other unions representing federal employees.

The unions sought to challenge President Donald Trump’s March 27 executive order, which aimed to eliminate collective bargaining rights for employees of government agencies with national security missions.

In a 15-page decision, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit panel stated that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of the plaintiffs’ retaliation claim, finding that Trump’s order does not, on its face, “express any retaliatory animus.”

“Even assuming that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie claim of retaliation, on this record the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct,” the judges stated.

More here: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/ap...m_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily

There should be no unions allowed in the civil service work force.

End the federal workers unions next.

 

[Rightguide]

He extended TPS as was his right as President.

The current President went back on that promise to those refugees that were given that promise.

Blame that on your opponents as you need ....the world doesn't give a shit

Here is the statute:

Statutory Authority: 8 U.S.C. § 1254a — Temporary Protected Status​

(b)(1) The Attorney General (now the Secretary of Homeland Security) “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, may designate any foreign state (or part thereof)” for TPS if the country:

• (A) is experiencing an ongoing armed conflict posing serious threat to personal safety,
• (B) has suffered an environmental disaster or epidemic that makes return unsafe, or
• (C) has other extraordinary and temporary conditions preventing safe return.

"Once designated, nationals of that country already in the U.S. on the effective date may stay and work legally until the designation expires. The statute allows extensions in 6–18 month increments if those unsafe conditions persist."

Here are the facts. TPS is not an entry program. It only protects foreign nationals already in the U.S. at the time of designation.
It does not authorize entry or resettlement of new arrivals, doing so would exceed the statute. Extensions must be justified.
The DHS Secretary must publish findings in the Federal Register explaining why the unsafe conditions still exist. It’s temporary by law. TPS does not grant lawful permanent residence, and the President cannot use it to bypass Congress’s immigration quotas.

 

[ll74]

Here is the statute:

Statutory Authority: 8 U.S.C. § 1254a — Temporary Protected Status​

"Once designated, nationals of that country already in the U.S. on the effective date may stay and work legally until the designation expires. The statute allows extensions in 6–18 month increments if those unsafe conditions persist."

Here are the facts. TPS is not an entry program. It only protects foreign nationals already in the U.S. at the time of designation.
It does not authorize entry or resettlement of new arrivals, doing so would exceed the statute. Extensions must be justified.
The DHS Secretary must publish findings in the Federal Register explaining why the unsafe conditions still exist. It’s temporary by law. TPS does not grant lawful permanent residence, and the President cannot use it to bypass Congress’s immigration quotas.

Yes, I get that you don't agree with Biden's TPS extensions that were legal.
I don't agree with the current President's revocations which have been ruled also legal.

Revoking promises is more of a negative impact on our integrity than extending protections.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, I get that you don't agree with Biden's TPS extensions that were legal.
I don't agree with the current President's revocations which have been ruled also legal.

Revoking promises is more of a negative impact on our integrity than extending protections.

Did Biden make his findings in line with the following?

• (A) is experiencing an ongoing armed conflict posing serious threat to personal safety,
• (B) has suffered an environmental disaster or epidemic that makes return unsafe, or
• (C) has other extraordinary and temporary conditions preventing safe return.

Just askin'. If so post them.