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. 

🎧 Listen: Civil Rights for Civil Servants

Shaun Southworth & Lydia Taylor on what's happening to the federal workforce. Latest episode: Apple · Spotify · Amazon Music · Youtube

Listen to the latest episode of Civil Rights for Civil Servants They kept a file on you. It's time you kept one on them. For the last year and a half, federal employees have lived through hiring freeze... player.captivate.fm

Today at a Glance

• Suitability Rule Finalized: OPM has finalized a rule that lets agencies remove current employees on "suitability and fitness" grounds — historically used to screen applicants — with OPM holding the final say and removals carried out within five workdays. The rule takes effect July 30, 2026.

• Supreme Court Expands Removal Power: The Supreme Court overruled a 91-year-old precedent and held that for-cause removal protections for the heads of independent agencies — including the Merit Systems Protection Board — are unconstitutional, while leaving the Federal Reserve a narrow exception.

• OPM Reopens Buyouts: OPM is offering its healthcare and insurance staff another round of deferred resignation and early-retirement incentives "before considering any involuntary actions," with a July 13 deadline to opt in.

Top Stories:

1. OPM Finalizes "Suitability" Rule That Lets It Order Removals of Sitting Employees — Effective July 30

Source: Federal News Network, June 29, 2026

TL;DR: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has finalized a rule applying "suitability and fitness" standards — the character-and-conduct criteria long used to screen job applicants — to people already on the rolls. Published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2026 (91 FR 39361), the rule amends 5 C.F.R. Part 731 and takes effect July 30, 2026. Under it, an agency that identifies post-appointment conduct it believes makes an employee unsuitable refers the matter to OPM, which holds the final say; if OPM decides a suitability action is warranted, it directs the agency to remove the employee within five workdays. The factors agencies must weigh now include whether an employee files taxes on time, meets citizenship requirements, properly uses government resources, and complies with "any applicable nondisclosure obligations." OPM Director Scott Kupor said the change closes an "irrational gap" between the tools available to keep someone out of federal service and those available to address the same conduct once they are hired. Commenters, including a coalition led by Democracy Forward and Protect Democracy, argued the rule bypasses Chapter 75 due-process protections; Kevin Owen of Gilbert Employment Law called it, paired with OPM's proposed governmentwide nondisclosure agreement, "a significant overreach" that could chill whistleblowing.

For federal employees, this means:

• A suitability-based removal is a different track from a Chapter 75 adverse action. OPM says notice, a chance to respond, and the right to representation remain, but the decision-maker is OPM, not your agency, and the removal window is five workdays once OPM directs it.

• Two new factors deserve attention now: timely tax filing (the House Oversight Committee is separately examining tax noncompliance among feds) and compliance with nondisclosure obligations tied to OPM's pending NDA proposal.

• Today, a suitability action can still be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). A separate OPM proposal to move those appeals in-house has not been finalized, so the MSPB route remains open for now.

Legal Insight:

Suitability actions arise under 5 C.F.R. Part 731 and rest on the President's authority over employee conduct in 5 U.S.C. § 7301; a § 731 removal is legally distinct from a Chapter 75 adverse action under 5 U.S.C. § 7513, though both currently carry a right of appeal to the MSPB under 5 U.S.C. § 7701. The rule's nondisclosure factor incorporates the anti-gag protection at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(13), which bars enforcing a nondisclosure policy that does not preserve the right to report wrongdoing to Congress, an Inspector General, or the Office of Special Counsel. Because the removal timeline is compressed and the forum question is in flux, an employee who receives a suitability referral or proposed action should consult a federal employment attorney promptly to preserve appeal and disclosure rights.

2. Supreme Court Overrules Humphrey's Executor — For-Cause Protection for Independent-Agency Heads Falls, Including at the MSPB

Source: Federal News Network, June 29, 2026

TL;DR: In Trump v. Slaughter, decided June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the for-cause removal protection shielding members of the Federal Trade Commission violates the separation of powers, and it overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), the 1935 decision that had upheld such protections for 91 years. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that protection from at-will removal for these officials "is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution." The Court's reasoning reaches other multimember bodies whose members Congress shielded from at-will removal, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and — of direct importance to federal employees — the Merit Systems Protection Board. In a separate order in the case of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the Court voted 5-4 to let Cook keep her seat while her challenge proceeds, signaling that the central bank occupies a constitutionally distinct position. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented. The ruling does not change the statutory rights of rank-and-file employees, but it removes a legal barrier to replacing the leadership of the agencies that adjudicate and enforce many of those rights.

For federal employees, this means:

• The decision does not alter your Chapter 75 protections, your MSPB appeal rights, or any pending case. Those statutes remain on the books and continue to apply.

• It does affect who runs the MSPB. The three Board members are statutorily removable only for cause under 5 U.S.C. § 1202(d); after Slaughter, that protection is constitutionally vulnerable, which bears on the stability and composition of the body that decides appeals.

• Quorum and case-processing watch: the MSPB needs a functioning Board to issue precedential decisions and rule on petitions for review. Track Board membership if you have a case headed for, or pending at, the headquarters level.

Legal Insight:
Humphrey's Executor had limited presidential removal of officials at agencies like the FTC, whose authorizing statute permits removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" (15 U.S.C. § 41); the MSPB carries a parallel for-cause standard at 5 U.S.C. § 1202(d). After Trump v. Slaughter, those provisions are unlikely to bar removal, even as the underlying employee-protection statutes — Chapter 75 (5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-7514) and MSPB review (5 U.S.C. § 7701) — remain in force. The practical question for appellants is institutional continuity at the Board, not a change in the legal standards the Board applies.

3. OPM Reopens Deferred Resignation and Early-Out Offers for Its Healthcare Staff — July 13 Deadline

Source: Federal News Network, June 29, 2026

TL;DR: OPM told most employees in its healthcare and insurance (H&I) division on June 29 that they will have another chance to take the deferred resignation program (DRP) or Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) ahead of an "organizational change," and "before considering any involuntary actions." Eligible employees have until 5 p.m. Eastern on July 13 to opt in. Those approved for the DRP go on paid administrative leave starting August 31, 2026, and separate March 1, 2027; OPM says DRP participants will be shielded from any reduction in force (RIF) during that period. Employees in OPM's Office of the Actuaries and its Systems Development and Implementation office are excluded, and DRP takers will not receive a fiscal 2026 performance award. The same day, OPM issued a proposed rule on administrative leave for "workforce realignment" (91 FR, doc. 2026-13073, June 29, 2026) stating that an agency has "sole and exclusive discretion" to deny a request to withdraw a resignation, and that having already received paid-leave benefits "is a valid reason" to deny withdrawal. The moves come months before Open Season (November to December), when H&I administers health-plan changes for the federal and postal workforce.

For federal employees, this means:

• VERA eligibility is specific: generally age 50 with 20 years of service, or any age with 25 years. Confirm your service computation date and creditable service before electing — an early-out is irrevocable once effective.

• Read the withdrawal terms closely. Under OPM's proposed rule, once you accept paid administrative leave, the agency may refuse to let you rescind your resignation — the IRS declined such requests last year after reopening its own DRP.

• Run the numbers on timing: a DRP separation on March 1, 2027 affects your high-3, leave payout, FEHB continuation, and any planned retirement date. Model it against a straight retirement before signing.

Legal Insight:
VERA is authorized at 5 U.S.C. §§ 8336(d)(2) (CSRS) and 8414(b)(1) (FERS), and the deferred-resignation structure relies on extended administrative leave, which Congress capped at 1,000 hours per year for most conduct/performance situations under 5 U.S.C. § 6329a — one reason OPM is now proposing separate "workforce realignment" leave authority. A deferred-resignation agreement is a binding separation contract; because OPM's proposed rule would let the agency deny a later attempt to withdraw, an employee weighing the offer should have the agreement and its retirement and benefits consequences reviewed by a federal employment attorney before the July 13 deadline.

Mindful Moment of the Day

The Policy Change Grounding

A sudden policy change can make a stable routine feel uncertain overnight. Return-to-office rules, telework expectations, reporting lines, or approval procedures may shift before anyone fully understands the details. When you feel the frustration rising, pause and name the reality: “This is a change, and change is hard on the body.” Then identify what is known, what is unknown, and what can wait. Keep the list short. Mindfulness does not mean you have to like the change or pretend it is easy. It helps you stay oriented while the workplace catches up to the new information. 

In Case You Missed It

A few quick hits from our recent videos and posts:

Who Controls Federal Grant Money? A New OMB Rule Would Give Political Appointees the Final Say

What Trump v. Slaughter Means for Federal Employees: The Supreme Court Expands Presidential Removal Power

Can the MSPB Stay Independent? A Private White House Meeting and a Broken Precedent Raise the Question