Lawsuit Challenges Schedule Policy/Career Rule
A coalition of major labor and watchdog organizations—including AFGE, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility—recently strengthened their legal challenge to Schedule Policy/Career. On March 4, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint that expands the case to target the entire framework: the underlying executive order, the Office of Personnel Management’s final rule, and the broader effort to reclassify career federal employees.
For federal workers whose roles involve policy analysis, regulatory work, or advisory functions, this case deserves careful attention. Schedule Policy/Career allows agencies to move certain career civil service positions into a category that can be removed at will—without the notice, cause, and appeal protections that typically apply to career employees.
The lawsuit raises several legal theories that go to the heart of how the federal merit system operates.
Whether the Rule Conflicts with Civil Service Law
The plaintiffs’ first argument focuses on the structure of the civil service statutes themselves. For more than a century, Congress has required that career federal employees be hired and disciplined based on merit rather than political loyalty.
The relevant statutory language refers to employees in “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating” roles. Historically, that language has been used to describe political appointees—particularly Schedule C positions—rather than career employees who entered government service through competitive hiring.
According to the complaint, the administration’s rule stretches that narrow exception far beyond what Congress intended. Instead of applying to a limited set of political roles, the new classification could potentially reach tens of thousands of career civil servants whose jobs involve policy work but who were hired under merit system rules.
The legal question is straightforward: did Congress authorize that expansion?
The Due Process Argument
The lawsuit also raises a constitutional claim under the Fifth Amendment.
Once a federal employee completes the probationary period and gains civil service protections, those protections are widely recognized as a form of property interest. That status triggers due process safeguards before the government can remove those protections.
The plaintiffs argue that simply reclassifying employees into a new category—one that removes adverse action protections and MSPB appeal rights—does not eliminate the underlying constitutional interest. In other words, the government cannot sidestep due process by changing the label attached to the position.
Courts have historically taken property interests in public employment seriously, which is why this argument may receive close scrutiny.
The Administrative Law Challenge
Finally, the complaint challenges the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. To survive judicial review, a federal rule must be based on a rational explanation and supported by evidence.
The plaintiffs argue that OPM justified the rule by asserting that agencies struggle to discipline poor performers. Yet the rule itself does not turn on employee performance—it turns on the type of work performed. Critics claim that disconnect undermines the rule’s logic.
The complaint also questions the reliability of the evidence used during rulemaking, including anonymous submissions and heavily duplicated public comments.
Why Federal Employees Should Watch This Case
For federal employees whose positions involve policy work, the stakes are significant. The outcome will help determine whether long-standing merit system protections can be removed through reclassification.
At the same time, it is worth remembering that litigation takes time. Courts will examine statutory text, constitutional principles, and the administrative record before deciding whether the rule can stand.
Approaching these developments with clear information—and a steady mindset—often leads to better decisions than reacting to headlines alone.
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.