In a federal courtroom in Connecticut, a judge has intervened in the ongoing tension between executive authority and the rights of organized labor, ordering the Bureau of Prisons to restore a collective bargaining agreement that protected some 30,000 prison workers. Judge Vernon Oliver's preliminary injunction, issued in late September 2026, found that Director William Marshall likely exceeded his authority when he terminated the contract a year prior — not for legitimate national security reasons, but for personal opposition to the union itself. The ruling does not resolve the larger constitu
Federal Judge Orders Bureau of Prisons to Restore Union Contract
This is an important step, but our fight is not over.
Mark
So a judge just told the Bureau of Prisons they have to bring back the union contract. What exactly did the director do that was illegal?
Mimi
He terminated the contract in September 2025, but the judge found he probably did it for the wrong reasons. The director said the union was an obstacle to progress, but the executive order that supposedly gave him the power to end it was about national security. The judge saw a mismatch.
Luke
Right, but the executive order is still being litigated elsewhere. This judge didn't rule on whether the order itself is valid. He just said Marshall's reasoning didn't hold up.
Mark
So what happens now? Does the contract just go back into effect?
Mimi
According to the order, yes—immediately. The Bureau of Prisons has to reinstate it and follow its terms through May 2029, which is when the current agreement expires anyway.
Luke
But the Justice Department is expected to ask for a stay, which would freeze the judge's order while they appeal. That's a pretty standard move in a case like this.
Mark
And if they get the stay?
Mimi
Then the contract stays terminated while the appeals process plays out. The union would be fighting in a higher court.
Mark
How many workers are we talking about?
Mimi
About 30,000 civil servants across federal prisons. This contract covers a lot of people.
Luke
The union president said the fight isn't over, which tells you something about how uncertain the long-term outcome is. This is a win, but it's not final.
Mark
Is this part of the broader push to eliminate federal unions?
Mimi
Yes. The executive order in March 2025 was designed to strip bargaining rights from federal workers in national security roles. The Bureau of Prisons falls under that umbrella. But this judge found the director's specific reasoning didn't match the order's stated purpose.
El Pulso
- A federal judge has directly challenged the Bureau of Prisons, ordering the immediate reinstatement of a union contract that the agency's director unilaterally scrapped — a rare judicial check on executive labor policy.
- Director William Marshall's public statements became his legal liability: the judge found his own words suggested the termination was driven by personal antipathy toward the union, not national security — the only justification that could have made it lawful.
- Thirty thousand federal prison workers, whose contract was renewed just months before Marshall tore it up, now stand to have their protections restored, at least temporarily.
- Union president Brandy White welcomed the ruling but immediately cautioned members: the Justice Department is expected to seek a stay within days, potentially freezing the order while the case climbs through the appellate system.
- The ruling avoids the explosive constitutional question of whether the president can strip collective bargaining rights from federal workers entirely — but that battle is coming, and this case may become one of its key fronts.
In a federal courtroom in Connecticut, a judge has intervened in the ongoing tension between executive authority and the rights of organized labor, ordering the Bureau of Prisons to restore a collective bargaining agreement that protected some 30,000 prison workers. Judge Vernon Oliver's preliminary injunction, issued in late September 2026, found that Director William Marshall likely exceeded his authority when he terminated the contract a year prior — not for legitimate national security reasons, but for personal opposition to the union itself. The ruling does not resolve the larger constitutional contest over federal workers' rights, but it draws a careful line between lawful executive action and administrative overreach. Whether that line holds will depend on what happens next in the appeals courts.
A federal judge in Connecticut has ordered the Bureau of Prisons to reinstate a collective bargaining agreement that the agency's director terminated in September 2025. Judge Vernon Oliver issued the preliminary injunction on Tuesday, finding that Director William Marshall's decision to end the contract likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing how federal agencies must act.
Marshall had terminated the agreement with the National Council of Prison Locals — which represents roughly 30,000 civil servants in federal prisons — claiming the union was an obstacle to progress. The contract had been renewed just months earlier, in November 2024, and was set to run through May 2029. Oliver's ruling turned on a pointed observation: Marshall's own public statements suggested he was acting out of opposition to the union itself, not out of any genuine national security concern — the only basis that might have authorized the termination under a March 2025 executive order from President Trump.
By focusing narrowly on Marshall's stated reasoning rather than the broader constitutional question of federal workers' bargaining rights, Oliver sidestepped a legal minefield while still delivering a significant rebuke. His order requires the bureau to immediately restore the contract and honor its terms for the remainder of the agreed period.
Union president Brandy White praised the decision but urged caution. She told members to expect the Justice Department to seek a stay — a move that would pause the ruling while the case proceeds through appeals. The victory, she made clear, was real but provisional. The larger fight over the Trump administration's effort to curtail federal union rights is far from settled, and this case is likely to become one of its defining chapters.
A federal judge in Connecticut has ordered the Bureau of Prisons to restore a collective bargaining agreement that the agency's director terminated just over a year ago. Judge Vernon Oliver issued the preliminary injunction on Tuesday, ruling that the bureau's decision to end the contract likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act—the law governing how federal agencies must make decisions.
William Marshall, the Bureau of Prisons director, terminated the agreement on September 25, 2025, claiming the National Council of Prison Locals represented an obstacle to progress. In a statement posted on the agency's website, Marshall said the union was not the kind he supported and that the contract had repeatedly slowed or prevented necessary changes. The union represents approximately 30,000 civil servants working across federal prisons nationwide. The agreement that Marshall ended had been revised and renewed just months earlier, in November 2024, and was set to run through May 2029.
Oliver's ruling is significant because it sidesteps the larger constitutional question hanging over federal labor relations. In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order designed to strip collective bargaining rights from federal workers in national security and intelligence roles—a category that includes the Bureau of Prisons under the Justice Department. That order remains the subject of ongoing litigation across the country. But Oliver focused narrowly on whether Marshall's stated reasons for terminating the contract were genuine. The judge noted that Marshall's public comments suggested he was acting for reasons unrelated to national security concerns, which would mean the director exceeded his authority under the executive order.
The judge found that the union had met its burden of showing it was likely to succeed in proving the termination was unlawful. His order requires the Bureau of Prisons to immediately reinstate the collective bargaining agreement and abide by its terms for the remainder of the agreed-upon period.
Brandy White, president of CPL-33, the union's leadership body, issued a cautious statement to members on Tuesday. She praised the ruling but warned that the Justice Department will almost certainly request a stay—a legal maneuver that would pause the judge's order while the case continues through the appeals process. White said the union expected more information about that request within a day. She acknowledged the victory while making clear the fight was far from finished. The case now moves into territory where the Trump administration's broader effort to eliminate federal unions will likely be tested again, this time with the specific facts of the prison workers' contract as the vehicle.
Citas Notables
The union was not the kind he supported, and the contract had repeatedly slowed or prevented necessary changes.— Director William Marshall's stated reasons for terminating the agreement
This is an important step, but our fight is not over.— Brandy White, president of CPL-33
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en CBS News ↗