A Boston federal judge has enjoined the Trump administration from requiring a so-called "loyalty" essay for federal civil service applicants, finding the prompt likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and applicants' First Amendment rights. Judge George O'Toole said the question could be read as probing political beliefs, which the Civil Service Reform Act forbids for career positions. The essay appeared in over 70,000 job postings after a January 2025 executive order and a May 2025 OPM memo. The ruling pauses the practice while the lawsuit proceeds.
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's 'Loyalty' Essay For Civil Service Applicants
President Donald Trump speaks during the second day of the Republican National Committee midterm convention at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas on September 10, 2026. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images) BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images
A Boston federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from continuing to require applicants for federal civil service jobs to answer an essay critics called a partisan "loyalty" question. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole sided with three unions that sued after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) began asking applicants to explain how they would help advance the president's policies and executive orders.
Ruling and Reasoning
Judge O'Toole, a Clinton appointee, found the essay prompt likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and infringed applicants' First Amendment rights. He wrote that the unions could reasonably interpret the prompt as an attempt to probe applicants' political beliefs—an inquiry barred by the Civil Service Reform Act for career civil service positions.
"The plaintiffs are thus likely to succeed in showing that there is no legitimate governmental interest in inquiring into the political beliefs of applicants to federal civil service vacancies," O'Toole wrote.
Background
The unions—led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and joined by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE)—argued the practice politicized hiring for positions that are supposed to remain nonpartisan. Lawyers with Democracy Forward, which represented the unions, said the prompt appeared in more than 70,000 federal job postings, undermining the merit-based hiring system.
OPM defended the prompt as optional and previously said hiring decisions could not be based on political beliefs. The essay was adopted following an executive order President Trump signed in January 2025 directing OPM to develop a hiring plan to bring into the federal workforce "only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests." OPM issued a May 2025 memo to agency heads outlining steps to implement that order, including the essay prompt.
Roles Affected and Reactions
Judge O'Toole noted the essay had been applied to a wide range of positions, from air traffic control specialists to crane operators and nuclear materials couriers. AFGE National President Everett Kelley criticized the practice, saying it runs counter to the nonpartisan nature of the civil service. OPM did not immediately comment on the ruling.
What Happens Next
The injunction halts use of the question while the case proceeds. If the court ultimately rules for the unions, the government may be barred from using comparable political-leaning vetting questions in civil service hiring. The administration may choose to appeal the decision.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Tom Hogue)
Help us improve.
