Attorneys for Federal Employees — Nationwide

Nearly 200,000 federal workers and supporters follow our updates across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Each briefing gives you the three stories that actually matter to your job, plain‑English legal guidance, and one short practice to protect your peace of mind. If it helps you, forward it to a colleague—new readers can subscribe at https://fedlegalhelp.com/newsletter. 

Today at a Glance

• Supreme Court Channels Federal Worker Speech Claims Back to MSPB: In Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, decided May 26, 2026, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and reaffirmed that federal employees raising constitutional or statutory challenges to workplace policies must, in most cases, use the Civil Service Reform Act review path before reaching federal district court.
• White House Nominates Senior OSC Lawyer Charles Baldis as Special Counsel: The president sent Baldis's name to the Senate on May 20, 2026 — the first permanent leadership nominee at the Office of Special Counsel since the early-2025 firing of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger. OSC handles whistleblower disclosures, Hatch Act enforcement, and prohibited-personnel-practice complaints for the entire federal workforce.
• NTEU Asks OPM and IRS to Restore Telework and Raise the Mileage Rate as Gas Prices Spike: In May 21 letters to OPM Director Scott Kupor and IRS Commissioner Frank Bisignano, the union cites an average regular-gasoline price of $4.56 per gallon and asks for telework reinstatement and a mid-year increase to the standard mileage reimbursement rate used for federal official travel.

Top Stories:

1.  Supreme Court Reverses Fourth Circuit in Margolin — Federal Employee and Union Claims Stay on the CSRA Track

Source: Government Executive, May 27, 2026

TL;DR: On May 26, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, No. 25-767, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The underlying dispute concerns a Department of Justice policy that requires immigration judges to obtain supervisory approval before speaking or writing publicly about immigration. The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) challenged the policy in federal district court as a First Amendment violation; the district court dismissed for failure to use the administrative scheme established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). The Fourth Circuit revived the case by directing the lower court to examine, on its own motion, whether recent removals at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) had so weakened the CSRA's review process that direct district-court review should be available. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit violated the long-standing "party presentation" principle by raising and deciding an issue neither party had briefed. The Court did not reach the constitutionality of the speech policy and did not decide whether the CSRA scheme is functioning as Congress intended; it simply sent the case back. There were no noted dissents. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett wrote separately to say they would have ruled for the government on the merits as well.

For federal employees, this means:

• If you want to challenge a workplace policy or adverse action on constitutional or statutory grounds, the default path remains agency review, then MSPB, then judicial review in the Federal Circuit. Direct district-court suits seeking to leapfrog the CSRA face a tougher path after Margolin.
• Filing deadlines inside the CSRA scheme matter more than ever — generally 30 days to appeal an adverse action to MSPB under 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d), and shorter agency-level grievance windows in many collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Missing the administrative window now carries a higher risk of total loss of review.
• Unions and other institutional plaintiffs that have leaned on injunctive challenges in federal district court should expect more dismissals or stays on channeling grounds while the underlying speech, discipline, reclassification, or removal disputes proceed through MSPB and OSC.

Legal Insight:
Margolin reaffirms the channeling rule announced in Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012): when a federal employee's claim falls within the CSRA's coverage, the statutory scheme is generally the exclusive avenue for review, and judicial review runs through MSPB and then to the Federal Circuit under 5 U.S.C. § 7703. The Court did not decide whether removals at MSPB or OSC have undermined the CSRA's adequacy — it held only that the Fourth Circuit could not reach that question without the parties raising it. Federal employees with potential challenges to speech rules, Schedule Policy/Career placements, reduction-in-force actions, or removals should treat the administrative track as the default and preserve every CSRA right at every step. Consult a federal employment attorney before relying on district-court litigation as a primary path.

2. White House Nominates Senior OSC Official Charles Baldis to Be Special Counsel — First Permanent Pick Since Dellinger's 2025 Removal

Source: FedWeek, May 27, 2026

TL;DR: On May 20, 2026, the Senate received the nomination of Charles N. Baldis to serve as Special Counsel of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for a five-year term, and the nomination was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Congress.gov, PN1011, 119th Cong.). Baldis has served as Senior Counsel at OSC since April 2025. Before joining OSC, he served as senior counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under then-Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and earlier as a prosecutor in Virginia. The Special Counsel position has been without a Senate-confirmed leader since the early-2025 firing of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger; an earlier nominee, Paul Ingrassia, was withdrawn in 2025 in the face of Republican Senate opposition. The OSC investigates whistleblower disclosures from federal employees, enforces the Hatch Act, prosecutes prohibited personnel practices, and handles certain USERRA matters for the federal workforce; it also has authority to seek stays of personnel actions before MSPB while it investigates.

For federal employees, this means:

• While the nomination is pending, OSC continues to operate under its current leadership team, including Baldis as senior counsel. A confirmed Special Counsel has greater institutional authority to set enforcement priorities and to defend OSC independence from removals or budget pressure.
• Employees and applicants considering a whistleblower disclosure should still use the existing OSC intake channels: file Form OSC-12 (Disclosure of Information) or OSC-11 (Complaint of Possible Prohibited Personnel Practice) and preserve documentary evidence. Statutory protections under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) and (b)(9) attach as of the disclosure, not as of any leadership change.
• Track confirmation developments — the Special Counsel's posture on probationary terminations, Schedule Policy/Career placements, and Hatch Act enforcement will shape what relief is realistically available through OSC over the next five years.

Legal Insight:
OSC's authority is set primarily at 5 U.S.C. §§ 1211–1219, with prohibited personnel practices defined at 5 U.S.C. § 2302 and the Hatch Act at 5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326. Under 5 U.S.C. § 1212, OSC may seek MSPB stays and corrective action when an agency commits a prohibited personnel practice, including reprisal for protected disclosures. The Special Counsel is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and is removable only "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b) — a protection that has itself been litigated since the 2025 removal of Special Counsel Dellinger.

3. NTEU Urges OPM and IRS to Restore Telework and Raise the Mileage Reimbursement Rate as Gas Prices Climb

Source: Government Executive, May 22, 2026

TL;DR: On May 21, 2026, National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) National President Doreen Greenwald sent two letters to the administration. The first, addressed to OPM Director Scott Kupor, asks that agencies be allowed to reinstate telework at least until the average regular-gasoline price returns below $3.00 per gallon. The second, addressed to IRS Commissioner Frank Bisignano, asks the IRS to issue a mid-year increase to the standard mileage reimbursement rate, which is used to set federal employees' official-travel reimbursement. NTEU cites the rise in average regular-gasoline prices to $4.56 per gallon as of May 21, 2026, attributing the spike to disruption of global oil supply. The union notes that the IRS has issued mid-year mileage-rate increases three times since 2000, most recently in 2022, and reminds OPM that the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 leaves telework eligibility and policy decisions with each agency head.

For federal employees, this means:

• Telework restoration would be an agency-by-agency decision under 5 U.S.C. § 6502, not a single White House action. If your position is telework-eligible, watch your agency for any updated policy guidance and keep your current written telework agreement on file.
• Federal travel reimbursement for personal-vehicle use is keyed to the IRS standard mileage rate via the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. § 301-10.303. If the IRS raises that rate mid-year, agencies are required to update their reimbursement allowances accordingly.
• Until a rate adjustment is issued, employees who use a personal vehicle for official travel should keep contemporaneous mileage logs, receipts, and any agency travel authorizations to support reimbursement at the rate in effect on the date of travel.

Legal Insight:
The Telework Enhancement Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506, requires every executive agency to establish a written telework policy, designate a Telework Managing Officer, and decide which positions are telework-eligible; the statute commits those decisions to the agency head's discretion. Federal travel reimbursement flows through the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. ch. 301, which incorporates the IRS standard mileage rate. If your agency declines to restore telework or to update reimbursement, and the denial intersects with a CBA, a disability-based reasonable-accommodation request under the Rehabilitation Act, or disparate treatment, raise it through the appropriate grievance or EEO channel — and consult a federal employment attorney before the agency-level filing window closes.

Legal Tip of the Day

When Deadlines Feel Unreasonable

Short deadlines can create pressure and lead to rushed decisions. This often happens during disciplinary or investigative processes. Note the deadline and assess what is realistically possible. It may be appropriate to request additional time. Avoid submitting incomplete or unclear responses if possible.