In today’s news and commentary, unions seek a preliminary injunction to prevent USDA downsizing; the D.C. District Court issues a preliminary injunction against new student loan regulations; Matt Bruenig releases an analysis of Starbucks’ ongoing legal battle against Starbucks Workers United.

Plaintiffs in the ongoing AFGE v. Trump lawsuit filed a supplemental complaint on Wednesday seeking a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration’s reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The plaintiffs, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), argue that the Trump Administration is attempting to dramatically reduce the USDA’s workforce in an arbitrary and capricious manner and without Congressional authorization. The Administration reported in its Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan that it plans to reduce the USDA’s workforce by 23% and transfer workers hundreds of miles away to new work sites. This is the second supplemental complaint filed by plaintiffs in this case, the first seeking a preliminary injunction against mass firings at the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA. As Melinda recently reported, Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion but granted a request to move immediately to partial summary judgment on that claim. 

The D.C. District Court recently issued a preliminary injunction against a Department of Education regulation restricting the ability of graduate students to access federal loans. On June 24th, Judge Beryl A. Howell set aside the Department’s “RISE Rule” that was intended to go into effect on July 1st, finding that plaintiffs were likely to establish that the Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The RISE Rule restricts the amount of federal loans graduate students may receive by providing new definitions of “professional” and “non-professional degrees.” Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, graduate students seeking “non-professional degrees” are only able to take out $20,500 per year, while “professional degrees” can access up to $50,000 per year. By reducing the number of degree programs characterized as “professional,” the Rule would reduce the availability of federal loans for graduate degree programs in nursing, education, and public health. The challenge was brought by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the Physician Assistant Education Association, who argue that the RISE rule is inconsistent with the definition of “professional degree” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While Judge Howell preliminarily enjoined parts of the Rule’s definition of “professional degree,” she declined to enjoin the Department’s enforcement of statutory caps on federal student loans entirely.

Finally, Matt Bruenig released an analysis of Starbucks’ ongoing legal battle against Starbucks Workers United (SWU) earlier this week. The report found that over the past five years, the Starbucks legal fight has generated over 16,000 documents—more than one document per organized worker. Employer-side firm Littler Mendelson has represented Starbucks in the vast majority of NLRB and judicial proceedings, with five attorneys at the firm working on over 200 Starbucks cases. As Bruenig writes, the ability of employers to create an “impossible legal environment” for workers and organizers leaves federal labor law “clearly at odds with its stated purpose.”