How Law Day Became a Wake-Up Call for Federal Employees
May 01, 2025For many, May 1st—Law Day—passes unnoticed. But in 2025, it lands at a moment of constitutional reckoning that no federal employee can afford to ignore. This year, Law Day isn’t just symbolic. It’s a stress test on the rule of law itself, with direct consequences for career civil servants.
Recent developments—from efforts to erase birthright citizenship via executive order to attempts at dismantling job protections for career employees—underscore a growing crisis: the erosion of legal checks on executive power. And the courts, including the Supreme Court, are being asked not just to interpret the law, but to decide whether they even have the power to stop unlawful executive actions.
Executive Orders vs. the Constitution: What’s at Stake
One flashpoint is a recent executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship, in defiance of the Constitution’s clear language. Legal scholars widely view this move as unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court has fast-tracked the case. At issue isn’t just citizenship—it’s whether federal courts retain the authority to issue nationwide injunctions that block illegal executive actions.
If the Court eliminates that power, the burden would shift dramatically. It could mean that any time a president oversteps, federal employees and others would need to individually sue—potentially in hundreds or thousands of separate cases. That’s not just inefficient; it risks creating a patchwork of rights where protections vary state to state.
Schedule F and the Return of Patronage
Meanwhile, federal workers face another threat: the resurrection of Schedule F. This classification would allow political appointees to reclassify tens of thousands of career employees, stripping them of civil service protections and making them easier to fire. It's a move that runs headlong into the principles of nonpartisan public service and the constitutional separation of powers.
The last time this issue came before the courts in a serious way was in Humphrey’s Executor (1935), which held that not all federal officials serve at the President’s pleasure. If this precedent is overturned or weakened, federal employees may be subjected to politically motivated purges unprecedented in modern history.
Why This Matters—Even with a “Conservative” Court
Some may assume the Supreme Court will side with the President due to its current 6–3 conservative majority. But many of those justices are self-proclaimed originalists. If they are true to that philosophy, they must reckon with the founders’ deep mistrust of concentrated executive power—a concern expressed repeatedly in the Federalist Papers.
The Constitution was written to prevent a president from ruling like a king. That’s why civil service roles are merit-based and protected, and why we have independent agencies insulated from political whims.
Hold the Line—and Stay Informed
Whether you’re facing reclassification, political retaliation, or simply trying to do your job amid uncertainty, know this: the law is still your ally, but only if we demand that it remains so. As the legal ground shifts, federal employees must remain vigilant—not only in defending their rights, but in upholding the Constitution itself.
Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.