The Patent Office Professional Association’s lawsuit against Trump’s executive orders, filed jointly with the National Weather Service Employees Organization on September 2, 2025, asks a federal court to strike down two orders that stripped patent examiners and weather forecasters of collective bargaining rights by labeling their agencies national security operations. The case, National Weather Service Employees Organization v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-02947, is pending before Senior Judge Paul L. Friedman in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.1Patently-O. Challenges to National Security Designation of Patent Examiners As of early 2026, the case is stayed while three closely related appeals move through the D.C. Circuit.
What the Executive Orders Did
Two orders drive the dispute. Executive Order 14251, signed March 27, 2025, designated more than 40 federal agencies as performing “intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work” as a primary function. That designation triggers 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b), which lets the president remove agencies from the federal collective bargaining framework when he determines their national security mission makes unionization incompatible with security requirements.2Immigration Policy Tracking. EO Exclusions From Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs
Executive Order 14343, signed August 28, 2025, expanded the list to include the USPTO’s Office of the Commissioner for Patents, the National Weather Service, NESDIS, NASA, and other agencies.3The American Presidency Project. Executive Order 14343: Further Exclusions From the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program Within days, USPTO Acting Director Coke Stewart circulated a memo telling staff that Patents business unit employees were no longer represented by POPA and that the union’s role as bargaining agent had ended. Existing agreements would run out their terms, but no new bargaining or grievance representation would follow. Salaries, duty stations, benefits, and work hours were left unchanged for the moment.4IPWatchdog. Trump Order Bars USPTO Patents Employees POPA Membership, Will Not Yet Affect Telework
What POPA and NWSEO Are Arguing
The unions are represented by Richard Hirn, general counsel for both organizations and co-chair of the Federal Workers Alliance Legal Committee.5Federal News Network. Commerce Dept. Unions Sue Over Rollback of Collective Bargaining Rights The complaint rests on three main claims.
The first is that the orders are ultra vires. Section 7103(b) allows exclusion only when an agency’s “primary function” involves national security work, and the unions argue neither the USPTO nor the National Weather Service comes close to that standard. Of roughly 600,000 patent applications the USPTO processes each year, only about 50 are subject to Defense Department secrecy orders, touching at most 26 of the agency’s roughly 9,000 examiners.5Federal News Network. Commerce Dept. Unions Sue Over Rollback of Collective Bargaining Rights The White House justified the National Weather Service designation by saying its data inform weather forecasting used to plan military deployments; the unions responded that the military branches maintain their own independent forecasting units.6NARFE. Federal Unions Allege Retaliation in Trump’s Collective Bargaining Rollbacks
The second claim is First Amendment retaliation. The complaint alleges the president “did not exclude those agencies or employees ‘with unions who work with him’ politically and who do not oppose his efforts to neuter the civil service,” singling out the National Border Council and the National Fraternal Order of Police as unions left untouched. Hirn told reporters “the president’s threat didn’t work with these two unions,” and said the exclusion list kept growing to punish those that resisted.5Federal News Network. Commerce Dept. Unions Sue Over Rollback of Collective Bargaining Rights
The third claim is irreparable harm. Losing bargaining rights while the administration simultaneously reshapes working conditions, the unions argue, cannot be undone after the fact.7NTEU. Motion for Preliminary Injunction, NWSEO v. Trump
Where the Case Stands
The unions filed for a preliminary injunction on October 23, 2025. Judge Friedman heard oral argument on December 10, 2025, and took the motion under advisement.8Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. NWSEO v. Trump
Twelve days later, on December 22, 2025, he stayed the case. Three closely related appeals were already pending at the D.C. Circuit, each challenging the same or overlapping executive orders: National Treasury Employees Union v. Trump (No. 25-5157), American Foreign Service Association v. Trump (No. 25-5184), and Federal Education Association v. Trump (No. 25-5303).8Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. NWSEO v. Trump Friedman ordered the parties to file a joint status report within 14 days of the D.C. Circuit’s decisions.
All three appeals were argued before the same panel on December 15, 2025.9CourtListener. American Foreign Service Association v. Donald Trump After argument, the panel ordered supplemental briefing on a threshold question: whether federal district courts can hear these challenges at all, or whether unions must first pursue them through the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Supplemental briefs were filed in January 2026, with additional letters on authorities in February and March 2026.10CourtListener. Federal Education Association v. Donald Trump No decision had issued as of March 2026.11Workers Legal Defense. Litigation Tracker
An earlier round in the NTEU case gives some sense of the government’s position in the appellate court. In May 2025, the D.C. Circuit granted the government’s emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction Friedman had issued in that case, finding the government “likely to prevail” on appeal and that the union had not established irreparable harm. Circuit Judge Childs dissented.12U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order, NTEU v. Trump, No. 25-5157
What It Means for USPTO Patent Examiners Right Now
The orders arrived on the heels of a landmark labor agreement. POPA and the USPTO had signed their first new collective bargaining agreement in more than 38 years on December 11, 2024, replacing a disputed 1986 contract.13USPTO. USPTO, Patent Office Professional Association Sign New Collective Bargaining Agreement The five-year deal guaranteed employees a formal voice in changes to workflows and working conditions. Less than nine months later, the executive order rendered that agreement a dead letter for future negotiations.
Telework is the most exposed working condition. Ninety-six percent of eligible USPTO employees were working remotely, and the agency’s headquarters and six regional offices do not have the physical capacity to house the full workforce if everyone were ordered back. Former directors warned that forcing examiners to choose between their jobs and their remote arrangements could drive away senior staff and reverse recent gains in patent pendency.14MLex. Trump Executive Orders Could Imperil US Progress in Patent Pendency Former POPA president Kathy Duda told Bloomberg Law the agreement’s most important function was ensuring employees “are treated fair and equitable” with “no favoritism,” and she expressed concern about “eroding telework protections.”15Bloomberg Law. Patent Chief Downplays Widespread Change After Trump Tosses CBA
POPA has not folded. Patricia Duffy, a POPA leader, said the union is “still here” and has been building a third-party dues and communications platform to keep operating outside the USPTO umbrella while the litigation runs.4IPWatchdog. Trump Order Bars USPTO Patents Employees POPA Membership, Will Not Yet Affect Telework
The pressure on examiners has continued to build outside the courtroom. In February 2026, OPM issued a memorandum directing all covered agencies to terminate or modify their collective bargaining agreements and notify affected unions and employees, unless a court order specifically prohibits implementation.16OPM. Implementation of Executive Orders 14251 and 14343 Because no injunction is currently in effect in the POPA case, USPTO patent examiners remain without formal union representation while the litigation continues.
What Could Happen Next
The case’s next move belongs to the D.C. Circuit. The panel’s supplemental briefing on jurisdiction signals that the court is weighing whether federal courts can review these executive orders directly, or whether unions must channel their claims through the FLRA. A ruling for the government on that threshold question could close the courthouse door on POPA’s suit entirely. A ruling for the unions would return the case to Judge Friedman, who would then decide whether the national security label attached to patent examiners and weather forecasters can survive judicial review.
Friedman’s earlier work in the NTEU case previews the analysis he would likely bring back to the POPA case. In granting a preliminary injunction there on April 25, 2025, he found the unions had rebutted the “presumption of regularity” that normally attaches to presidential exclusions under § 7103(b), citing the sweeping scope of the March order (roughly two-thirds of the unionized federal workforce), White House statements suggesting a retaliatory motive, and OPM guidance that appeared to use the national security label to advance unrelated goals like ending telework.17Courthouse News Service. Opinion, NTEU v. Trump, Civil Action No. 25-0935 The D.C. Circuit stayed that injunction, but the framework remains on the table if the appellate court clears the way for the POPA case to proceed on the merits.