Skip to content

Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees

Emergency application for stay is granted on April 8, 2025. Justice Sotomayor and Jackson would deny the application.

Docket No. Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
24a904 TBD TBD TBD TBD OT 2024

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district court's injunction ordering six departments and agencies to immediately offer reinstatement to over 16,000 employees who were laid off.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
03/24/2025Application (24A904) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.
03/27/2025Letter of applicant United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. filed.
03/27/2025Response to application (24A904) requested by Justice Kagan, due by 12 p.m. (EDT) on April 3, 2025.
03/27/2025Amicus brief of APA Watch submitted.
04/03/2025Response to application from respondents American Federation of Government Employees, et al. filed.
04/03/2025Amicus brief of County of Santa Clara, Calif. submitted.
04/03/2025Amicus brief of Former Government Officials Donald Ayer, Ty Cobb, Mickey Edwards, John Farmer Jr., Peter Keisler, et al. submitted.
04/04/2025Reply of United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. in support of application submitted.
04/08/2025Application (24A904) referred to the Court.
04/08/2025Application (24A904) for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1780, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application. Justice Jackson would have declined to reach the standing question in the context of an application for emergency relief where the issue is pending in the lower courts and the applicants have not demonstrated urgency in the form of interim irreparable harm. See Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). Thus, she would have denied the application.