Prison Union's First Amendment and APA Challenge to Collective Bargaining Agreement Termination Survives Dismissal

NEW HAVEN (LN) — A federal judge in Connecticut on April 28 refused to dismiss a First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit brought by the National Council of Prison Locals against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, ruling the union plausibly alleged that BOP Director William K. Marshall III terminated its collective bargaining agreement not for national security reasons but to punish the union for speaking out against the Trump administration.

The ruling allows CPL-33 and its local chapter at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury to press claims that Marshall's abrupt September 25, 2025 termination of a contract covering roughly 30,000 civil servants — approximately four years before its scheduled May 28, 2029 expiration — amounted to unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, as well as arbitrary and capricious agency action under the APA.

U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver held the union's retaliation theory plausible in part because of what Marshall himself wrote. On the same day he terminated the contract, Marshall posted a "Message from the Director" on BOP's website that made no mention of national security. Instead, it stated that the current CBA had "too often slowed or prevented changes" and declared that "when a union becomes an obstacle to progress instead of a partner in it, it's time for change." The message also stated that BOP would move forward "without roadblocks."

The message stood in contrast to the formal termination letter Marshall sent CPL-33 that same day, which stated that "based on [EO 14,251] and as of the date of this notice, [BOP] no longer recognizes [CPL-33] as the exclusive representative for employees of the existing bargaining unit" — but offered no explanation of why termination was necessary to carry out the order's national security purposes.

The court held that gap significant. EO 14,251, signed by President Donald Trump on March 27, 2025, exempted BOP and dozens of other agencies from the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute on national security grounds. But Judge Oliver noted the order "did not state that agencies were compelled to terminate existing CBAs, and it did not mandate that the CPL-33 CBA be terminated before its expiration date." The Office of Personnel Management's own guidance, issued after the Ninth Circuit stayed a preliminary injunction blocking the order, said agencies "may choose to terminate, abrogate, or repudiate CBAs with other [non-NTEU] unions."

On the viewpoint discrimination claim, Oliver held that Marshall's message targeted CPL-33's specific advocacy — including six Capitol Hill trips between March and September 2025 and social media posts opposing salary and retirement cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — rather than unionization itself. "While the BOP is certainly within its rights to terminate the CBA in accordance with EO 14,251 for national security concerns," Oliver wrote, "it may not do so to punish or suppress disfavored speech."

The government's three-pronged jurisdictional attack fared no better. Oliver rejected the argument that the Federal Labor Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction, reasoning that it would be "logically untenable" to channel claims through a statutory review scheme that the same executive order had rendered inapplicable to BOP. He also turned aside a claim-splitting argument, holding that the CBA termination occurred approximately six months after the parent union filed its broader EO 14,251 challenge in the Northern District of California and could not have been raised there. On the APA count, he declined to dismiss at the pleading stage, holding that arbitrary-and-capricious review requires a certified administrative record and is properly resolved at summary judgment.

Oliver also denied the government's motion to transfer the case to the District of Columbia, rejecting the argument that Washington becomes the locus of operative facts whenever executive action originates there. The case centers on Local 1661 and FCI Danbury, both Connecticut-based, and the court noted that plaintiffs intend to rely on the testimony of Robert Curnan, Local 1661's president, on standing and remedies.

Following the CBA's termination, CPL-33 representatives and bargaining unit employees have, according to the complaint, "become increasingly hesitant to engage in activity that is or could be perceived as being contrary to the policies of the Trump presidential administration" — a chilling effect the union says the court's ruling now gives it the chance to prove.