Donald Trump’s project to remake the federal civil service into something that screens for loyalty just hit a road bump in Massachusetts.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge George O’Toole granted three federal-employee unions a stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, temporarily barring federal agencies from putting “Question Three” on civil service job applications. That’s the essay prompt, rolled out as part of the administration’s May 2025 “Merit Hiring Plan,” itself the offspring of Executive Order 14170 and its stated goal of staffing the government with “highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals” — asking applicants to “[i]dentify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”
Which everyone outside of the MAGA brain trust immediately clocked as a loyalty test.
From ‘Associate’ To ‘Doppelganger’: The Evolution Of The Legal AI Persona
Confronting Biglaw’s ‘snake eating its own tail’ problem.
Include Judge O’Toole. The unions (AFGE, AFSCME, and NAGE) argued the question forces career applicants to praise the president’s agenda, stay silent, or answer honestly and risk their shot, all for jobs that have nothing to do with politics, and the judge agreed they’re likely to win on the merits.
O’Toole held the government’s proffered interest — its “discretion in administering its hiring and recruitment processes” — doesn’t cut it, because the Civil Service Reform Act flatly prohibits hiring decisions based on political affiliation. Political allegiance isn’t “an appropriate requirement for the effective performance” of the jobs at issue, which the unions helpfully noted include Air Traffic Control Specialist, Nuclear Materials Courier, and Crane Operator. The question is neither tied to a legitimate government interest nor narrowly tailored to one. Irreparable harm is presumed in the First Amendment context, and the equities and public interest both tip toward the unions.
Now, the administration has other tools for reshaping the federal workforce, from mass firings to Schedule F reclassifications to simply making a DOJ job unpleasant enough that the lawyers leave on their own. Plus the naked partisanism of exactly this kind of move has curdled the prestige of federal work, making it a hard sell on its own. But the piece of the plan that made applicants put their loyalty in writing is, for now, on ice.
Willkie Elevates Legal Work with Lexis+ with Protégé
Willkie AI and Innovation leader Todd Friedlich spoke to LexisNexis about firm’s thoughtful approach to legal AI
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Bluesky @Kathryn1