Court pauses Question Three across federal applications
BOSTON — U.S. District Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. on Friday temporarily stayed the implementation and use of a federal civil-service application question that asked candidates how they would help advance President Donald Trump's executive orders and policy priorities.
The order came in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. Kupor, No. 25-13305, a lawsuit brought by AFGE, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Association of Government Employees against the Office of Personnel Management, OPM Director Scott Kupor and the United States.
O'Toole granted the unions' request for a stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act. FedScoop reports that OPM must notify affected department and agency leaders of the stay within seven days. The pause remains in effect until a further court order.
What applicants had been asked to write
OPM and the White House Domestic Policy Council issued the Merit Hiring Plan on May 29, 2025 in response to Executive Order 14170. The plan directed that federal vacancy announcements at grade GS-05 or above include four short essay questions.
Question Three asked applicants how they would help advance the president's executive orders and policy priorities, then told them to identify one or two orders or initiatives significant to them and explain how they would implement them if hired.
Later OPM guidance said responses were not required, would not be scored and could not be used as an ideological litmus test. The court nevertheless found that an applicant could reasonably understand the prompt as requesting personal political views linked to a desired civil-service job. It also found that treating the answer as optional did not eliminate the alleged injury.
The ruling is preliminary—not a final constitutional judgment
The judge concluded that the unions were likely to succeed in showing that Question Three violated the APA because it was contrary to First Amendment protections. He wrote that, on the current record, the government had not identified a legitimate interest in asking civil-service applicants about their political beliefs and had not narrowly tailored the question.
Those are preliminary findings made while deciding temporary relief. The court has not entered a final judgment resolving every claim, and the administration may continue defending the policy, seek review of the order or change its guidance.
The judge granted the APA stay but denied a separate request for a preliminary injunction that would have barred officials from considering any applicant's response or nonresponse in individual hiring decisions. He found the unions lacked standing to seek that specific form of relief because their asserted injury arose from facing the question, not from an identified personnel decision.
Claims about scale require attribution
Reuters and the unions' attorneys at Democracy Forward say the disputed prompt appeared in more than 70,000 federal job postings. That figure is the plaintiffs' reported count, not a number independently established by the court.
The court said the record showed the question had appeared in thousands of applications, including for positions such as air-traffic-control specialist, nuclear-materials courier and crane operator. OPM had argued that the essays were optional and that agencies were told not to base hiring decisions on political beliefs.
OPM did not immediately respond to Reuters and told FedScoop it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The reviewed sources did not report a new agency directive or appeal filed Friday night.
What the order does—and does not—change
Confirmed: the court stayed the government-wide implementation and use of Question Three while the case proceeds. Agencies covered by the order cannot keep inserting or using that prompt as though Friday's stay had not occurred.
Not established: that every prior federal hire is invalid, that any applicant is automatically entitled to a job, damages or reinstatement, or that the entire Merit Hiring Plan has been struck down. The order addresses the challenged policy question and temporary relief at this stage of one lawsuit.
The featured image is an authentic September 15, 2024 photograph by Wikimedia Commons contributor 4300streetcar showing the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse in Boston. It is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. The image does not show O'Toole, federal applicants, OPM officials or Friday's proceeding, and its use does not imply endorsement.
Sources and further reading
U.S. District Court for Massachusetts: September 11 opinion and order ↗
Reuters: judge blocks federal job-application policy question ↗
FedScoop: scope, notice requirement and OPM response ↗
Office of Personnel Management: May 29, 2025 Merit Hiring Plan ↗
Wikimedia Commons: authentic Moakley Courthouse photograph and CC BY 4.0 license ↗