Federal employee unions are pressing a federal appeals court to force a district judge to rule on their pending lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) federal hiring essay questions unveiled in summer 2025 — a challenge FMA has been watching closely.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), and other unions filed suit in November 2025, arguing that OPM's essay requirement violates First Amendment protections by compelling political expression from job applicants — or discouraging qualified candidates from applying at all. At the center of the dispute is a question asking applicants to describe their favorite policy or executive order from the current administration and explain how they would help advance it. OPM has maintained that the essay questions are optional and play no role in hiring decisions. The unions dispute that characterization, contending that some applicants have in fact been required to answer.

A hearing on the unions' request for a preliminary injunction was held in March 2026. On June 15, they petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a writ of mandamus — a request asking the appeals court to compel the district judge to act.

The unions point to numbers that make the case for urgency on their own: when the lawsuit was filed, roughly 5,800 federal job postings carried these essay questions. That figure has since climbed to nearly 48,000.

Much of the Administration’s broader hiring reform effort — reducing time-to-hire, emphasizing skills-based hiring consistent with the Chance to Compete Act — is uncontroversial and enjoys support across the aisle. However, as noted above, the essay questions are a piece of the package that have drawn sustained criticism: a requirement that all candidates for positions at or above the GS-5 level answer four essay prompts, including one asking them to identify an executive order or policy priority of the president and describe how they would help implement it if hired.

The questions are prescribed as follows:

1. How has your commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role within the federal government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic, or personal experience.

2. In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes.

3. How would you help advance the President’s Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.

4. How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal achievements? Provide one or two specific examples, and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position.

One FMA member offered a more workable alternative: instead of asking applicants to pledge support for a specific executive order or policy tied to the current administration, they suggested asking applicants to write about which part of the agency's mission matters most to them.

FMA will track this litigation and keep members informed as the First Circuit considers the unions' petition.