# Federal Bureau of Prisons Re-Terminates Union Contract in Defiance of Court Order
**WASHINGTON** — The Federal Bureau of Prisons has once again dismantled its collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Government Employees, issuing a fresh termination notice just days after a federal judge ordered the agency to restore the contract in full.
The move marks an extraordinary escalation in a legal battle between the nation’s federal prison system and one of its largest employee unions, raising serious questions about the separation of powers and the enforceability of judicial orders within the executive branch.
## The Timeline of a Disputed Termination
BOP Director William K. Marshall III first canceled the union contract in early September 2025, citing concerns that collective bargaining had become a “roadblock” to agency progress. At the time, Marshall did not reference any executive branch directives as the basis for his decision.
The American Federation of Government Employees, which represents roughly 30,000 Bureau of Prisons employees through Council of Prison Locals 33, quickly filed suit. The union argued that the cancellation was retaliation for its exercise of First Amendment rights and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
On September 29, U.S. District Judge Vernon Oliver agreed, granting a preliminary injunction that required the BOP to immediately reinstate the collective bargaining agreement and all its associated terms through the contract’s natural expiration in 2029.
In an October 2 filing, the agency formally acknowledged the order and confirmed its compliance.
## A “Fresh” Termination Changes the Rationale
Just one week later, however, Director Marshall reversed course entirely. On October 7, he issued a new notice terminating the contract again — this time explicitly framing the decision as a response to executive orders issued by the previous administration mandating the elimination of collective bargaining for large segments of the federal workforce.
“The Bureau of Prisons no longer recognizes the Council of Prison Locals, AFGE, as the exclusive representative for employees of the existing bargaining unit,” the memo states, citing the executive order as its sole legal foundation.
The shift in justification was notable. By anchoring the re-termination in a separate presidential directive, the BOP argued that the court’s earlier injunction — which was based on the original cancellation rationale — no longer applied.
## Union Alleges Continued Defiance
The American Federation of Government Employees was quick to respond, filing documents on October 6 seeking to hold the Bureau of Prisons in civil contempt of court. The union’s filing detailed a series of alleged violations suggesting that the agency had never truly reinstated the contract even after the judge’s order.
Brandy Moore White, president of AFGE Council 33, reported that across multiple federal correctional facilities, union representatives were routinely denied official time, barred from disciplinary meetings, and told there was no guidance on restoring the contract’s provisions.
“Each day that BOP delays, locals are unable to obtain official time, meet with management, access rosters or represent their members,” Moore White wrote in a court filing. “Employees are losing the protections of the CBA.”
The court filings also included accounts from BOP employees who described a chilling atmosphere. One staff member recounted that when he requested union representation during a disciplinary meeting, an HR manager responded, “There ain’t no union,” and proceeded without representation present — ultimately resulting in the employee’s termination.
## Director Marshall’s Contested Statements
Perhaps the most striking allegations in the court record came from direct quotes attributed to Director Marshall himself. One exhibit presented to the court describes a staff meeting in which Marshall was asked whether he would comply with the judicial order to restore the union agreement. His response, as recorded by a witness, was: “I don’t take directives from the court. I take my orders from the President of the United States.”
A separate account from another BOP employee reportedly quoted Marshall as saying he would only honor the court’s reinstatement order “when the White House tells him to.”
These statements, if accurate, raise profound constitutional concerns about whether a federal agency director can override a court order by deferring exclusively to executive directives.
## The Agency’s Defense
The Bureau of Prisons has rejected the union’s contempt allegations, maintaining that it acted diligently to restore normal operations under the reinstated agreement. A spokesperson pointed to specific measures, including making office space available for union activities and instructing wardens to approve official time requests on a “case-by-case basis.”
The agency also stated that wardens were directed to allow union representation during disciplinary meetings and investigatory interviews.
However, BOP acknowledged that the full restoration process had not been completed before the new termination notice was issued. The agency argued that rebuilding infrastructure — including identifying suitable office space and organizing meetings — takes time after more than a year without a functioning contract.
## Stakes for Federal Correctional Workers
The dispute is about more than administrative procedure. For roughly 30,000 Bureau of Prisons employees — from correctional officers to medical staff to administrative personnel — the collective bargaining agreement represents a critical framework for workplace protections, due process rights, and a structured channel for addressing grievances with management.
Moore White characterized the situation bluntly on Thursday, calling on the public to “be outraged.” “These agreements are not simply pieces of paper,” she said. “They provide stability, due process and a meaningful voice for the men and women who keep our institutions safe.”
## What Happens Next
Legal experts suggest the next phase will likely involve a hearing on AFGE’s contempt motion, where the court will weigh the agency’s assertion that it was complying with the order against the union’s detailed accounts of noncompliance.
Meanwhile, the re-termination notice has opened a new legal front. The court will need to determine whether the BOP’s invocation of executive orders provides a lawful basis to void a judge’s binding preliminary injunction — a question that could have sweeping implications for how executive branch agencies respond to judicial orders in the future.
The case is expected to move quickly, as the clock ticks on the union contract’s expiration date of 2029 and the employees represented by AFGE Council of Prison Locals 33 continue operating without the protections of a collective bargaining agreement.
—
## Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
**What is a collective bargaining agreement?**
A collective bargaining agreement is a legally binding contract between a federal agency and a labor union that represents the agency’s employees. It outlines terms and conditions of employment, including pay, benefits, working hours, grievance procedures, and the right to union representation.
**Who is AFGE Council of Prison Locals 33?**
AFGE Council of Prison Locals 33 is the local chapter of the American Federation of Government Employees that represents approximately 30,000 employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The council coordinates bargaining and advocacy efforts across multiple correctional facilities nationwide.
**What is a preliminary injunction?**
A preliminary injunction is a court order issued during the early stages of a lawsuit that requires a party to either take or refrain from taking specific actions. It is intended to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm while the court considers the merits of the case. In this instance, the injunction required the Bureau of Prisons to immediately reinstate the union contract until its 2029 expiration.
**What is the Administrative Procedure Act?**
The Administrative Procedure Act is a federal law that governs how government agencies create and enforce regulations. It requires agencies to follow transparent, reasoned decision-making processes and provides a legal mechanism for challenging agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law.
**Why did the BOP terminate the contract a second time?**
The Bureau of Prisons issued a new termination notice on October 7, explicitly framing the decision as a response to executive orders mandating the elimination of collective bargaining across broad swaths of the federal workforce. By grounding the re-termination in a presidential directive rather than the original rationale, the agency argued the court’s earlier injunction no longer constrained its authority.
**What did Director Marshall allegedly say about the court order?**
Court filings include accounts in which Director Marshall allegedly stated that he does not take directives from the court, asserting instead that he takes his orders from the President of the United States. These statements have been cited by the union as evidence of deliberate defiance of the judicial order.
**What is civil contempt of court?**
Civil contempt is a legal finding that an individual or entity has disobeyed a court order. If the court holds the Bureau of Prisons in contempt, it could face penalties including fines or mandatory compliance directives. AFGE filed a motion seeking this finding after alleging the agency refused to abide by the preliminary injunction.
**What protections does the collective bargaining agreement provide?**
The contract covers a wide range of workplace protections, including the right to official time for union activities, representation during disciplinary meetings and investigatory interviews, access to employee rosters, designated office space for union operations, and a structured grievance process for resolving disputes between employees and management.
—
## Conclusion
The re-termination of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ collective bargaining agreement with AFGE, issued in direct defiance of a federal court order, represents a constitutionally charged moment for the federal workforce. At its core, the dispute tests whether executive branch agencies can override judicial mandates by invoking presidential directives — a question that extends far beyond the walls of the nation’s federal prisons.
For the 30,000 employees represented by AFGE Council of Prison Locals 33, the consequences are immediate and tangible. Without a functioning collective bargaining agreement, correctional officers and other prison staff face diminished due process protections, reduced access to union representation, and a weakened voice in workplace decisions that directly affect their safety and well-being.
The allegations detailed in court filings — including accounts of union representatives being told to ignore a judge’s order and employees being denied representation during disciplinary proceedings — paint a picture of an agency in active resistance to judicial authority. Whether these allegations will be upheld as evidence of contempt remains to be determined, but the urgency of the situation is undeniable.
As the legal proceedings continue, this case serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of labor protections in the federal government and the critical role that the judiciary plays in enforcing the rule of law. The outcome will likely set a precedent not just for the Bureau of Prisons, but for how all federal agencies navigate the intersection of executive orders and court orders in the future.
Thank you for reading
