A federal judge issued a stay forbidding the administration from asking those seeking jobs in the federal government to say how they would help carry out presidential executive orders, in what had been seen as a test of “loyalty” to President Trump.
U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., a Clinton appointee to the court in Massachusetts, sided with labor unions who’d argued asking the question was an unconstitutional politicization of federal jobs.
The question, the third in a series of four essay questions, was added to the hiring process last year in response to a Trump executive order. It asked applicants to say how they would advance presidential executive orders and to name one or two in particular.
“The plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that Question Three is neither related to an important government interest nor narrowly tailored to promote that interest,” the judge wrote.
Government lawyers had defended the question as within the administration’s discretion over hiring.
Judge O’Toole said there are some cases in which political beliefs could be relevant, but for the civil service positions at issue in the case, the law specifically prohibits employment decisions based on “political affiliation.”
He said the administration never explained why political allegiance was an appropriate test for civil service jobs.
The unions that challenged the question said some 70,000 job postings have been subjected to the question.
“Requiring federal job applicants to answer politically motivated questions goes against the very nature of the nonpartisan civil service, and we are pleased the judge has put an immediate stop to the administration’s loyalty questions,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees.
The ruling bars the administration from forcing the question onto civil service job applications while the case develops further in the court.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.