A federal judge has ordered the Bureau of Prisons to immediately restore a collective-bargaining agreement covering roughly 30,000 federal prison employees while a legal challenge to the agency's termination of the contract continues.
The September 29 preliminary injunction does not finally decide the lawsuit. But U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver found that the National Council of Prison Locals and an affiliated local had shown they were likely to succeed on their claim that the Bureau of Prisons violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it abruptly terminated the agreement.
The court ordered the Bureau to reinstate the national agreement, along with subsidiary amendments, local supplemental agreements and memoranda of understanding, for the remainder of the contract's agreed term.
The dispute matters beyond labor relations. The agreement governs issues that reach directly into prison operations, including overtime, staffing, employee safety, grievance procedures, disciplinary representation and local safety rules. The court noted that the union also advocates for staffing, safety measures and working conditions affecting both employees and incarcerated people.
What happened
President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14,251 in March 2025, excluding the Justice Department and several other agencies from federal collective-bargaining requirements on national-security grounds.
But the court emphasized that the executive order did not require the Bureau of Prisons to cancel existing agreements before they expired. The Bureau continued operating under the contract for months after the order was issued.
The agreement had most recently been extended through May 28, 2029.
Then, on September 25, 2025, Bureau of Prisons Director William K. Marshall III terminated the agreement effective immediately.
According to the court's order, Marshall publicly said the union had become an “obstacle to progress” and that the contract had too often slowed or prevented changes the agency wanted to make. The court said that explanation was unrelated to national security, even though the agency cited the executive order as authority for ending the contract.
What the judge found
Judge Oliver concluded that the union had shown a likelihood of success on its Administrative Procedure Act claim, that the termination caused irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored preliminary relief.
The court ordered the Bureau to restore the contract while the case proceeds.
A preliminary injunction preserves or restores conditions while litigation continues. The merits of the union's claims remain unresolved, and the broader legality of Executive Order 14,251 is being litigated in other cases.
Why this matters inside prisons
The Bureau of Prisons operates 122 institutions in the United States and Puerto Rico and employs roughly 35,000 people, according to the court's order.
The reinstated agreement covers far more than union dues or bargaining sessions. It addresses work assignments, schedules, mandatory overtime, health and safety protections, employee representation in disciplinary investigations, grievance procedures and regular labor-management meetings.
At FCI Danbury, for example, the court described local agreements covering overtime procedures, medication transportation and safety procedures affecting both staff and incarcerated people.
Those details matter because chronic staffing shortages, mandatory overtime, unsafe working conditions and weak internal accountability can affect everyone inside a prison, not only employees.
A prison system with exhausted staff, unstable staffing patterns or fewer channels for raising safety concerns can create consequences for incarcerated people as well. The union's legal victory does not prove that collective bargaining will solve those problems. It does restore one formal mechanism through which employees can challenge working conditions and negotiate safety procedures while the case is litigated.
What happens next
The Bureau of Prisons must comply with the preliminary injunction unless it obtains relief from a higher court or the order is otherwise modified.
The merits of the union's claims remain unresolved.
Prison Project will continue watching the case because the outcome could affect staffing, overtime, safety procedures, discipline and labor-management oversight throughout the federal prison system.
Sources
- Reuters, September 30, 2026: US prison agency must reinstate union bargaining contract, US judge rules.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, National Council of Prison Locals v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Document 72, September 29, 2026.
Reporting note: This story distinguishes the court's preliminary findings from a final decision on the merits. The broader legal challenges to Executive Order 14,251 remain separate from this case.
Comments