Federal Judge Halts Essay Question on President Trump’s Executive Orders

Federal job applicants will no longer be asked which of President Trump’s executive orders are most “significant” to them– at least for now.

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole of the District of Massachusetts issued a stay, directing agencies to remove the so-called “loyalty” question from all hiring announcements. He found that the inclusion of the question likely violated job applicants’ First Amendment rights. The stay remains in effect while litigation continues.

The judge also gave the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) one week to provide notice of the stay to all departments and agencies that used the question in the hiring process.

Question in Focus

At the heart of the case is Question 3 on the federal job essays, which asks applicants to identify one or two Trump administration executive orders or policy initiatives that are “significant” to them and explain how they would help implement them if hired.

In his ruling, Judge O’Toole focused on testimony from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee applying for other federal positions who said she felt compelled to provide an answer contrary to her personal views for fear that answering honestly would “hurt her application.”  

“The plain language of Question Three calls for the applicant’s personal views on a political topic, and directly links that personal view to the duties of the desired civil service job,” wrote Judge O’Toole in the ruling.

Already Submitted Answers Will Remain

The lawsuit was filed almost a year before the stay by federal labor unions and employee groups, who said the inclusion of a "loyalty" test unlawfully politicized the hiring process for the career civil service.

And while Judge O’Toole found that the unions were likely to succeed in showing that the question violated the Administrative Procedure Act, he refused to issue an injunction blocking agencies from considering answers to the question that have already been submitted.

For its part, the Trump administration argued that Judge O'Toole did not have jurisdiction in the case and that it should have gone through internal processes like the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The administration also argued that the directives are not considered final agency actions and therefore cannot be reviewed in court.

After initially directing agencies to include the questions as part of its Merit-Based Hiring Plan, OPM clarified that candidates could choose not to answer them without being penalized.