This page tracks noteworthy events in AFSA’s major court cases.
How to Support This Work
Most of the litigation detailed on this page is funded through AFSA’s Legal Defense Fund, which supports cases of significant institutional importance to the Foreign Service.
- Active Federal Court Cases: 6
- Employees Impacted: 14,000+
- Agencies Affected: State, USAID, USAGM
- Current Monthly Legal Costs: ~$100,000
Last Updated 9/10/26
Since early 2025, AFSA has filed and supported a series of coordinated federal legal challenges responding to actions affecting the U.S. Foreign Service workforce and institutions. Each case addresses a different legal question and therefore moves on its own timeline. Together, they affect more than 14,000 Foreign Service personnel, current and former, across the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM).
This tracker provides a snapshot of where each case stands and what each development means for affected members of the Foreign Service.
Contact Us: If you have questions for AFSA’s legal team, please email us at member@afsa.org.
Media Inquiries: Members of the press should contact AFSA’s Communications & Outreach Director Nikki Gamer at gamer@afsa.org.
AFSA’s Legal Cases at a Glance
| Current Status | Issue | Case Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|
 | Union-Busting | American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) v. Trump | Washington, D.C. |
 | USAID Dismantling | American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) v. Trump | Washington, D.C. |
 | USAGM Shutdown | Widakuswara v. Lake | Washington, D.C. |
| Violation of Continuing Resolution | American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL CIO v. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) | Northern District of California |
| Agency Reorganizations and RIFs | American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFL-CIO v. Trump | Northern District of California |
| Havana Syndrome/Anomalous Health Incidents | American Foreign Service Association, et al. v. U.S. Department of State | Washington, D.C. |
Case Details
Current Status: Awaiting decision
Case Name: AFSA v. Trump, 1:25-cv-01030, (D.D.C.) (District Court), AFSA v. Trump, 25-5184, (D.C. Cir.) (Court of Appeals)
Complaint Filed: April 6, 2025
Primary Counsel: Richard J. Hirn, Esq., Keith R. Bolek, Esq., O’Donoghue and O’Donoghue
Why AFSA filed this case: AFSA filed suit against the U.S. government following an executive order signed by President Trump that revoked collective bargaining rights for 97% of AFSA’s bargaining unit members. This action undermines critical protections for Foreign Service employees and threatens their ability to serve effectively. AFSA’s lawsuit raises violations, by the Trump Administration, of separation of powers, First Amendment rights, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
State of Play: Awaiting decision from the Court of Appeals
Next expected step: Decision from the D.C. Circuit on whether the courts have jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims and whether the District Court’s preliminary injunction, which is currently stayed by the D.C. Circuit, should stand.
Current Status: On appeal
Case Name: AFGE v. Trump, 25-5290, (D.C. Cir.) (Court of Appeals)
Complaint Filed: February 6, 2025
Primary Counsel: Democracy Forward Foundation, Public Citizen
Why AFSA filed this case: AFSA, along with co-plaintiffs, filed this lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s unlawful dismantling of USAID without congressional authorization.
State of Play: On Sept. 1, 2026, the court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ request to stop efforts to conduct a major reorganization at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The court ruled that the claims related to this request were "new and distinct" and should be brought in a separate lawsuit. The court denied the plaintiffs' request to halt the reorganization efforts.
Next expected step: Plaintiffs and their counsel will confer on the next steps.
§
Related Case: J. Doe 4 v. Musk, 8:25-cv-00462 (D. Maryland)
Date Filed: Feb. 13, 2025
Why this case was filed: Plaintiffs (USAID employees/contractors) allege Elon Musk and “DOGE” unlawfully exercised federal authority to dismantle USAID without Senate confirmation, violating the Appointments Clause and separation of powers. The district court issued a preliminary injunction halting those actions. That injunction has been stayed by the Fourth Circuit, and the case is ongoing in district court in the discovery phase with no final ruling on the merits yet.
AFSA's role: AFSA filed an amicus brief highlighting the interests and particular legal status of its Foreign Service Limited members who are not subject to the channeling arguments Defendants made in their motion to dismiss.
Current Status: Granted
Case Name: Widakuswara v. Lake,1:25-cv-01015, (D.D.C.) (District Court), Widakuswara v. Lake, 25-5144, (D.C. Cir.) (Court of Appeals)
Complaint Filed: March 21, 2025 (in the Southern District of NY), transferred to U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. on April 4, 2025
Primary Counsel: Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, Ballard Spahr LLP, Government Accountability Project, and Democracy Defenders Fund
Why AFSA filed this case: AFSA, along with co-plaintiffs, filed this lawsuit to challenge the unlawful actions taken by USAGM following Executive Order 14238, which directed massive restructuring and elimination of non-statutory components of USAGM. Plaintiffs argue that USGAM’s actions abruptly dismantled human infrastructure needed for its news networks without adequate legal or procedural basis, causing severe harm to both journalists and the public.
State of Play: The case is moving forward on two tracks at the same time: in the district court and in the court of appeals.
On July 10, the plaintiffs asked the district court to require the defendants to explain how they have complied with its order overturning the agency’s unlawful decision to dramatically reduce operations. That order also set aside actions stemming from the decision, including placing more than a thousand employees on administrative leave, suspending broadcasts, and terminating employees.
Meanwhile, the appeals court set deadlines in June and July for both sides to submit written arguments on the district court’s ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor on part of the case.
Next expected step: On Sept. 11, 2026, the court will consider the plaintiffs’ request that the defendants explain how they have complied with the order overturning the agency’s unlawful decision.
Current Status: Awaiting decision
Case Name: AFGE, AFL CIO v. OMB, 3:25-cv-08302, (N.D. Cal.) (District Court)
Complaint Filed: September 30, 2025
Primary Counsel: Altshuler Berzon LLP, Democracy Forward Foundation, Democracy Defenders Fund
Why AFSA filed this case: AFSA, along with other federal labor unions, challenged the administration’s plan to fire thousands of federal workers during the 2025 government shutdown, asserting it was unlawful to carry out mass layoffs when funding had lapsed, and statutory protections remained in place.
State of Play: On March 6, the Department of Justice asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that there is no longer an active dispute because the challenged federal layoff guidance and Section 120 of the Continuing Resolution expired on Feb. 13, 2026. The plaintiffs opposed the request on April 21. Since then, the two sides have been discussing a possible settlement, and the court has extended the deadline for the defendants to respond.
Next expected step: The defendants’ response is due Sept. 8, 2026. The court is scheduled to consider the request to dismiss the case at a hearing on Sept. 25.
Current Status: Awaiting decision
Case Name: AFGE, AFL-CIO v. Trump, 3:25-cv-03698, (N.D. Cal.)
Complaint Filed: April 28, 2025
Primary Counsel: Altshuler Berzon LLP, Democracy Forward Foundation, Democracy Defenders Fund, Protect Democracy, State Democracy Defenders Action
Why AFSA filed this case: The plaintiffs sued to stop Executive Order (EO) 14210 and its implementing directives, which directed large-scale federal workforce reductions (RIFs) and restructuring of federal agencies.
State of Play: On March 9th, the district court issued an order regarding expedited production of discovery by the government. There also continues to be ongoing appellate proceedings. The district court granted a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order blocking some actions and ordered the government to provide documentation. Although the 9th Circuit stayed and later vacated the district court's preliminary injunction, the appeal of the injunction remains pending.
Next expected step: Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Current Status: Active
Case Name: American Foreign Service Association, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, No. 1:24-cv-03385 (D.D.C.)
Complaint Filed: Dec. 4, 2024
Primary Counsel: Daniel S. Crowley; and Mark S. Zaid and Bradley P. Moss
Why AFSA filed this case: AFSA and a group of current and former Foreign Service employees sued the State Department over its denial of HAVANA Act benefits for injuries linked to Anomalous Health Incidents (AHIs). The lawsuit argues that the department imposed eligibility requirements that do not appear in the law or its regulations and therefore unlawfully denied the claims.
State of Play: On Feb. 13, 2026, the court rejected the State Department’s request to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiffs had made a legally sufficient case for the lawsuit to proceed. The court will review the records and other information the department used to make its decisions. It has not yet decided whether the plaintiffs are entitled to benefits.
Next expected step: The State Department is supposed to provide the records it relied on, to the plaintiffs, when reviewing their claims. Assuming the Department provides the material, both sides will review the material and submit arguments asking the court to rule on whether the department’s decisions were lawful.