A Washington federal judge expressed skepticism Tuesday over the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to cancel a collective bargaining agreement covering Transportation Security Administration workers, suggesting the move could be viewed as an effort to sidestep an existing court injunction.

U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead pushed back during a hearing on the government’s position that it could dissolve the 2024 union agreement based on a new agency determination, even though another federal judge barred DHS from terminating the same agreement in June.

“Some might call that an end-run around an injunction,” Judge Whitehead said, while questioning how agencies could be prevented from repeatedly issuing new determinations each time a court intervenes.

The dispute centers on a collective bargaining agreement between TSA and the American Federation of Government Employees, including Local 1121, which represents TSA workers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The unions are asking the court to enforce a June injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, which blocked DHS from rescinding the agreement while litigation proceeds.

DHS argues that the June order only applied to a February departmental memorandum and does not cover a separate determination signed in September by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, which again directed cancellation of the agreement. Government attorney Brian C. Kipnis said the later memo was a new agency action that addressed deficiencies identified by the court.

The unions counter that the September determination reaches the same outcome and reflects the same alleged legal flaws as the earlier action. They accuse DHS of attempting to evade the court’s order by repackaging the decision under a different memo.

Judge Whitehead questioned the government’s timing, noting that DHS finalized the September determination weeks earlier but did not disclose it to workers until mid-December, while TSA employees were facing the possibility of working without pay during a looming government shutdown.

According to DHS, the September decision relied on updated information, including management surveys and cost data related to collective bargaining. After informing employees of the decision on Dec. 12, the government moved to dismiss the lawsuit and dissolve the earlier injunction, arguing the case had become moot.

The unions disagree, maintaining that DHS lacks unilateral authority to terminate the agreement and that the court should allow them to amend their complaint to directly challenge the September determination.

Judge Whitehead said he will rule first on the motion to enforce the existing injunction and indicated a decision could come by the end of the week.

The case is American Federation of Government Employees AFL-CIO et al. v. Noem et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.