A recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Department of Education violated the First Amendment rights of its employees during a government shutdown in 2025. The court determined that the Department’s actions, which included changing employees’ automated out-of-office email messages to include a partisan political statement, constituted compelled speech and infringed upon the employees’ right to refrain from speaking.
The case, *American Federation of Government Employees v. U.S. Department of Education*, centered on the Department’s response to the government shutdown that began on October 1, 2025. Facing the shutdown, the Department initially instructed furloughed employees to set up out-of-office email messages using a nonpartisan template. However, after the employees lost access to their work emails, the Department unilaterally altered these messages. The new, standardized auto-reply stated that the lapse in appropriations was caused by “Democrat Senators” blocking the passage of a “clean” continuing resolution.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), a labor organization representing the affected employees, sued the Department, arguing that the revised messages forced employees to express a political viewpoint against their will, violating their First Amendment rights. AFGE sought summary judgment, requesting an expedited briefing schedule due to the temporary nature of the alleged constitutional violation, which would end when the shutdown did. The court agreed to expedite the process but also allowed the government to file a cross-motion for summary judgment.
The court, in its memorandum opinion issued on November 7, 2025, sided with AFGE, granting its motion for summary judgment and denying the government’s cross-motion. The court’s decision was based on several key findings:
Jurisdiction Over the Claim
The court addressed the government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction, stating that the claim could be handled administratively. The government argued that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) and the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) provided the exclusive channels for resolving federal labor-related disputes. The court acknowledged that these acts generally preclude district court review. However, it applied the *Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich* framework, which examines whether Congress intended to preclude district court jurisdiction and whether the claim falls within the statutory schemes.
The court found that the administrative channels were closed due to the shutdown, making it impossible for AFGE to obtain meaningful judicial review before the shutdown ended. The court determined that the employees would lose their rights if they could not assert them until the agency proceedings were over. This unique circumstance led the court to conclude that it had jurisdiction over AFGE’s claim.
Mootness of the Original Message
The court addressed the Department’s argument that any claim regarding the initial, now-replaced, message was moot. The government argued that since the Department had replaced the Original Message with the Revised Message and committed to not reverting to the original one during the shutdown, the issue was no longer a live controversy. The court agreed, deeming the claim regarding the Original Message prudentially moot. This means that, due to the circumstances, the court decided it was not necessary to rule on the constitutionality of that message.
Violation of First Amendment Rights
The heart of the court’s decision was the finding that the Revised Message violated the First Amendment. The court determined that the Department’s actions constituted compelled speech. The court reasoned that recipients of the auto-reply messages would reasonably attribute the partisan statements to the individual employees. The messages included the employees’ names and email addresses, creating a “close link” between the employees and the speech, thus creating an “unacceptable risk” that the Revised Message would be viewed as the employee’s speech.
The court rejected the government’s argument that the Revised Message was government speech. While acknowledging that government employers have control over their employees’ words and actions, the court found that the message was not within the employees’ official duties. The court emphasized that the employees were not responsible for commenting on the politics surrounding the government shutdown.
Applying the *Pickering* framework, which balances employees’ free speech interests against the government’s operational interests, the court found that the employees’ interest in not being compelled to speak far outweighed the government’s interest in delivering a partisan message. The court noted the importance of nonpartisanship in the federal civil service and the employees’ interest in avoiding being coerced into endorsing ideas they found objectionable.
Permanent Injunctive Relief
As a result of its findings, the court granted AFGE’s request for a permanent injunction. The court found that AFGE had demonstrated that its members suffered an irreparable injury and that remedies at law were inadequate. The court also determined that there was no public interest in allowing the perpetuation of the unlawful agency action. The court’s injunction will prevent the Department from using partisan political language in the out-of-office messages of AFGE members.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting the First Amendment rights of government employees and upholding the principle of nonpartisanship in the federal civil service.