Judge prevents Noem from canceling TSA negotiation agreement

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during an appearance on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, March 9, 2025 (CBS/YouTube).

A federal judge in Seattle has disrupted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s efforts to terminate a union contract safeguarding Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees. The judge criticized Noem for not giving the TSA workers any notice or chance to respond before invalidating the contractual commitments abruptly. The ruling came this week, calling into question the fairness of Noem’s actions.

The U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman issued a temporary court order on Monday, supporting the American Federation of Government Employees’ members in their lawsuit against Noem and the Trump administration. This legal action stems from the administration’s decision to cancel a seven-year collective bargaining agreement that was finalized last year.

Following Noem’s directive on February 27 to terminate the agreement within 90 days and dismiss all existing complaints filed by the AFGE for TSA employees, members of the AFGE sought legal protection to uphold the original contract. They argued that canceling the agreement without proper consultation or adherence to due process would negatively impact TSA employees.

“AFGE has demonstrated a strong likelihood that the Noem Determination constitutes impermissible retaliation against it for its unwillingness to acquiesce to the Trump Administration’s assault on federal workers,” wrote Pechman, a Bill Clinton appointee, in a 41-page ruling.

“AFGE has shown the Noem Determination likely violates Due Process, having afforded no notice or process for AFGE and its members to work with DHS and TSA to resolve any disagreement before simply shredding the contractual promises of the CBA,” she said. “And AFGE has shown it is likely to succeed in showing the Noem Determination is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, particularly given its complete disregard for the 2024 CBA and its mischaracterization of AFGE’s role.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Pechman said AFGE’s lawyers “convincingly” argued that Noem’s directive violates the First and Fifth Amendments, along with having alleged ulterior motives.

“The Noem Determination appears to have been undertaken to punish AFGE and its members because AFGE has chosen to push back against the Trump Administration’s attacks to federal employment in the courts,” Pechman charged.

“The First Amendment protects against retaliation for engaging in litigation and public criticism of the government,” she said. “And the Noem Determination’s threadbare justification for termination of the CBA exposes the retaliatory nature of the decision.”

In its motion for the preliminary injunction, AFGE’s lawyers said Noem’s memorandum was “directly attacking AFGE” by name, contending that determinations on bargaining rights were “misplaced directives” that have “solely benefited” AFGE at the “expense” of transportation security officers (TSOs).

“This targeted attack on AFGE came on the heels of AFGE’s public efforts to push back against the Trump Administration’s attacks on federal workers,” the motion said. “It is apparent, moreover, that the administration is both tracking and fixated on those who seek to enforce their rights in court.”