In today’s News and Commentary, NY Port Authority must proceed to trial in PUMP Act case, First Circuit denies motion to stay order vacating H-1B visa fee, and DC Circuit denies sergeant’s First Amendment claim over unauthorized disclosure.

On Thursday, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s motion for summary judgment on a maintenance employee’s PUMP Act claim. The Court also sustained the plaintiff’s disparate treatment and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act claims, while dismissing hostile work environment and FLSA claims. Plaintiff Taylor Cruz performed maintenance on PATH railcars at the Harrison Car Maintenance Facility. Cruz went on maternity leave in April 2023, and several weeks before returning to work, she emailed her business manager about her need for a place to express breastmilk.  Her business manager responded with a list of all of the designated spaces for lactating mothers within the Port Authority, none of which were located in the Harrison Car Maintenance Facility. Cruz thought that the second-floor locker room would be an acceptable place to pump breastmilk, but found that it was neither private nor sanitary. Upon informing her business manager, she was offered use of a vacant office on the third floor, but she had to ask for a key to the office whenever she needed access because the agency did not want to make copies of the keys, claiming security concerns. Cruz began using a different vacant room, until cleaning staff reported difficulty accessing the room and Cruz was called into a meeting, accompanied by her union representative, with her business manager, who instructed her to stop using the vacant room. Five days later, Cruz was finally given a copy of the key to the original vacant office. In allowing Cruz’s PUMP Act and other claims to go to trial, the court has ruled that a jury must decide whether adequate space for expressing breastmilk was provided, as well as whether the Port Authority discriminated against her on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII and failed to provide reasonable accommodations under the PWFA.

On Friday, the First Circuit denied the Trump administration’s motion to stay the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ order and final judgment that vacated DHS and DOS’s actions in implementing the presidential proclamation requiring a $100,000 payment for all H-1B visa petitions. The presidential proclamation was issued in September 19, 2025, and DHS and DOS took actions between that date and October 20 to implement the proclamation. On December 12, the twenty state plaintiffs challenged the implementation under the APA and for being unconstitutional. The district court declared the policy unlawful and vacated it in its entirety. The government filed a motion requesting a stay of the order pending appeal, which the court denied by concluding that it had not made a “strong showing” that they are likely to succeed on the merits.

On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that officials at the D.C. Department of Corrections did not violate the First Amendment or the Whistleblower Protection Act by firing a veteran sergeant and union leader for her unauthorized disclosure of internal records about conditions in the prison during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court found that Plaintiff Jannease Johnson violated confidentiality policies through her disclosure of emails to her union’s attorneys, therefore cannot invoke a First Amendment claim for her termination. However, the Court found a material factual dispute as to whether an official violated the First Amendment by firing Johnson for granting a press interview, stating that the law “clearly establishes Johnson’s right to speak on matters of public concern without retaliation when her government employer lacks a countervailing interest in her silence.” The panel decided that Johnson had alleged sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether she was illegally terminated for speaking about lapses in the agency’s response to COVID-19 in a press interview. Under Pickering, public employees retain their First Amendment rights to comment, off-the-clock, on public issues or debate, requiring a demonstration that they spoke in their capacity as a private citizen—not a public employee—and that their speech concerned a matter of public interest and contributed to the adverse employment action. While the panel found that the government’s interest in enforcing confidentiality policies outweighed Johnson’s interest in sharing the confidential information, they also found that speaking to the press about alleged mismanagement of pandemic conditions qualifies as a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment.