- Judicial Review:Agencies that insist on upholding lame-duck CBAs may face litigation. Courts could be called upon to interpret whether such agreements, negotiated in a transitional period, violate constitutional principles and statutory mandates as outlined in the memorandum. Precedent from Supreme Court rulings on executive authority may play a decisive role in these cases.
- Executive Directives:The memo itself serves as an executive directive that agency heads must follow. By clearly outlining which types of contractual obligations are impermissible, the administration provides a roadmap for agency compliance, potentially minimizing the need for protracted legal battles.
- Negotiation and Renegotiation:Another pragmatic approach might involve renegotiating existing agreements to remove provisions that extend beyond the new administration’s policy framework. This option, while time-consuming, could prevent litigation and foster a more collaborative environment between federal employees and management.
- Legislative Action:Although the memo is issued under presidential authority, Congress retains the power to legislate on matters of federal employment and labor relations. Future legislative initiatives could further clarify—or complicate—the legal landscape surrounding lame-duck CBAs.
One of the most immediate flashpoints in this unfolding drama is the Department of Education’s CBA negotiated on January 17, 2025. By effectively preventing the return of remote employees to their offices, the agreement appears to entrench policies from the previous administration. Should the Department fail to amend or nullify this agreement, it may soon find itself embroiled in litigation—a test case for the application of the memorandum’s provisions. The potential legal fallout could set a precedent that reverberates across other federal agencies and their labor contracts.
