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

• Civil Service Protections: The full Federal Circuit agreed to hear, en banc, whether an agency's invocation of the Constitution can let it fire career employees outside civil-service rules — a rare step that puts the "Article II firings" question before the entire court.

• Union Speech At The IRS: The National Treasury Employees Union has sued the IRS in federal court, alleging the agency confiscated pro-union flyers and flags from employees' workspaces and barred future displays in violation of the First Amendment.

• Watchdog Oversight: A new GAO report finds the body that polices inspectors general missed its own deadlines in 76% of sampled cases — a process that matters to anyone who reports wrongdoing to an IG.

Top Stories:

1. Full Federal Circuit Will Hear the "Article II Firings" Case — En Banc Review of At-Will Removals

Source: Government Executive, June 17, 2026

TL;DR: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed on Wednesday, June 17, to hear en banc — before the full court rather than a three-judge panel — the appeal of two former immigration judges who were removed in 2025 with Article II of the Constitution cited as the sole basis. An administrative judge had overturned both removals, but in March 2026 the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) reversed and relinquished jurisdiction over appeals in which an agency invokes constitutional authority to justify a personnel action. The MSPB ruling, departing from decades of practice, reasoned that certain "inferior officers" whose duties are limited and non-policymaking may be removed at will. The fired judges, Megan Jackler and Brandon Jaroch, appealed directly to the Federal Circuit and asked the full court to take the case — a request appellate courts rarely grant. The court granted en banc review and agreed to expedite the appeal. Federal employee unions, several lawmakers, and an association representing MSPB employees have filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The administration has applied the same "Article II" rationale to hundreds of Justice Department employees.

For federal employees, this means:

•  If an agency justifies a removal on constitutional ("Article II") grounds, the MSPB's current position is that it may decline to hear the appeal — making this case the central test of whether that door stays closed.

• The outcome will shape whether career employees in quasi-judicial or "inferior officer" roles keep MSPB review and for-cause protection, or can be removed at will.

• Nothing about the case changes your appeal deadlines today; if you receive a proposed or final adverse action, protect your rights by filing on time while the law is unsettled.

Legal Insight:
Federal employees facing a covered removal ordinarily appeal to the MSPB and, from there, to the Federal Circuit under 5 U.S.C. § 7703, with for-cause protection under 5 U.S.C. § 7513. The question now before the full court is whether an agency's invocation of Article II can strip those statutory protections from employees Congress chose to cover. Because appeal windows are short and unforgiving, an employee who receives a proposed or final adverse action should consult a federal employment attorney promptly rather than wait for the en banc decision.

2. NTEU Sues the IRS Over Removal of Pro-Union Materials — A First Amendment Test

Source: Government Executive, June 15, 2026

TL;DR: The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) sued the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on Monday, June 15, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the agency has been confiscating and discarding pro-union flyers, flags, and other materials from employees' workspaces. The complaint traces the removals to a May 29 directive from the acting chief of the IRS Facilities Management and Security Services office instructing staff to remove "any and all NTEU materials." In one incident at an IRS office in Decatur, Georgia, the suit says facilities staff removed union flags from three cubicles and discarded them, and told employees who had posted nothing to refrain in the future. The directive tied the effort to the 2025 executive order that excluded much of the federal workforce, including the IRS, from collective bargaining on national-security grounds. NTEU argues the prohibition is an unconstitutional prior restraint and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. NTEU President Doreen Greenwald called it "textbook" viewpoint discrimination. The union asks the court to stop the practice.

For federal employees, this means:

• Even where an executive order has suspended collective bargaining at your agency, your individual constitutional rights — including free speech and association — are a separate question the courts, not the agency, ultimately decide.

• An agency directive to remove union materials does not, by itself, settle whether the removal is lawful; the dispute here will be resolved in federal court.

• Keep records — dates, names, and copies of any directive — if workplace materials are removed or you are told what you may display; documentation matters if a dispute arises.

Legal Insight:
Federal employees' right to form, join, and assist a labor organization is protected by statute at 5 U.S.C. § 7102, but Executive Order 14251 (Mar. 27, 2025) excluded the IRS and many other agencies from that labor-management framework — which is why NTEU is suing under the First Amendment rather than the labor statute. The complaint frames the IRS directive as a prior restraint, a form of government censorship that federal courts subject to demanding scrutiny.

3. GAO Faults the System That Oversees Inspectors General — Missed Deadlines in 76% of Sampled Cases

Source: Government Executive, June 15, 2026

TL;DR: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on Monday, June 15 (GAO-26-107922), finding that the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) often failed to follow its own procedures when reviewing misconduct allegations against agency inspectors general. CIGIE houses the Integrity Committee, which receives ethics complaints against IGs and senior watchdog staff; from 2020 through 2025 it received more than 16,200 complaints and completed 15 investigations. GAO found that a single staff member has been screening out complaints deemed "frivolous" without the legal-counsel review that internal policy requires. In a generalizable sample of 79 referred cases, the committee missed at least one timeline requirement 76% of the time; in 49% of complaints, the Justice Department or the Office of Special Counsel did not decide within seven business days whether to advance the matter. GAO also flagged weak controls over reimbursing IGs who conduct these investigations. CIGIE concurred in principle with all eight of GAO's recommendations. The report follows the administration's removal of nearly 20 IGs and a monthslong 2025 hold on CIGIE's funding.

For federal employees, this means:

• Inspectors general remain a primary, legally protected channel for reporting fraud, waste, and abuse; this report concerns how complaints against the IGs themselves are handled, not your ability to file a disclosure.

• If you have reported wrongdoing to an IG, delays in the oversight body's process do not shorten or waive your own whistleblower protections.

• Consider documenting what you disclosed, to whom, and when — a clear record strengthens any later reprisal claim.

Legal Insight:
Federal employees who disclose wrongdoing to an inspector general are protected from reprisal under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(B), and the Integrity Committee that GAO examined is established under 5 U.S.C. § 424 as part of the inspector general framework recodified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 401–424. Because whistleblower-reprisal claims carry their own filing deadlines and evidentiary burdens, an employee who fears retaliation for a protected disclosure should consult a federal employment attorney about preserving the claim through the Office of Special Counsel and the MSPB.

Mindful Moment of the Day

The Union Meeting Reset 

Union meetings can bring relief, information, anger, worry, and solidarity all at once. After hearing updates about policy changes, grievances, RIF concerns, or management tension, your body may feel activated even if the meeting was helpful. Before returning to your desk, take two minutes to reset. Stand up, feel your feet, and name what you are carrying: concern, frustration, hope, confusion, or resolve. Then choose one next action, such as reviewing notes, asking a question, or simply returning to your current task. Mindfulness lets you stay engaged without letting every update flood your whole day. 

In Case You Missed It