Standing on a Fork
Or: The OPM's sleight of hand on the deferred resignation case.
The Fork in the Road program was a classic Trump administration maneuver: offer federal employees an exit deal—eight months’ pay without work (maybe) and benefits in exchange for their resignation—while making it abundantly clear that those who stayed might regret it. Federal employee unions challenged the program in court, arguing that OPM lacked the legal authority to offer such a deal and that the rollout violated federal labor laws. A judge issued an injunction, temporarily halting the program while the case played out. Today, that case was dismissed on standing grounds. Within hours, OPM closed the Fork program and issued a statement declaring victory: “There is no longer any doubt: the Deferred Resignation Program was both legal and a valuable option for federal employees.”
Which is a lie.
A case dismissed for lack of standing does not mean the program was legal. It means the judge decided that the unions weren’t the right plaintiffs to challenge it in court. That’s it. The court didn’t rule that OPM had the authority to offer the deal, didn’t evaluate whether the program violated federal labor law, and certainly didn’t bless it as “proven legal.” The OPM statement is an intentional distortion, banking on the fact that most people don’t know the difference between a procedural dismissal and a substantive ruling.
And they do know the difference. The officials who signed off on that statement knew full well that the judge never ruled on the legality of the program. They’re just betting that you don’t.
An Unusual Ruling
But even setting aside OPM’s cynical dishonesty, there’s another problem: the judge’s reasoning itself is highly suspect.
Unions have a long history of suing on behalf of their members under the Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission test, which requires: (1) that at least one member has standing, (2) that the issue is related to the union’s purpose, and (3) that the relief sought doesn’t require individual members to participate. Courts rarely reject union cases on standing, and when they do, it’s usually because the unions are seeking monetary damages, which require individual plaintiffs (Massone v. Washington, United Food & Commercial Workers v. Brown Group).
That’s not what happened here. The unions in the Fork case didn’t ask for damages. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief—a ruling that OPM’s program was unlawful and an order stopping its implementation. This kind of lawsuit has not been dismissed on standing in past cases. So why now? The ruling doesn’t match precedent, and without access to the judge’s written decision—available behind a paywall, because knowledge is power and power costs money around here—we don’t even know what rationale was used to justify it.
A Rigged Game
A dismissal on standing can be appealed, but the administration saw this coming and moved to shut down the program before the unions could get back on their feet. OPM’s immediate closure of the Fork deal means the unions’ only option is an emergency stay, which is much harder to win than a standard appeal. This is not how a good-faith administration operates. If they truly believed the program was legal, they’d let the case play out and win on the merits. Instead, they slammed the door before the unions could step through it.
And let’s talk about the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Trump administration’s approach to court rulings. When they get the ruling they want—like today’s standing decision—they act immediately. But when the courts rule against them? They stall, delay, and straight-up ignore decisions they don’t like. The court ordered them to release the frozen funds—impounded by executive order or DOGE decree—weeks ago, and the administration is still dragging its feet. But today? When they win? The policy is executed within hours.
The Trump White House doesn’t want to be bound by the law; they want to weaponize it selectively. They want you to feel grateful that they’re not outright defying the courts, but the reality is worse: they use the system only when it benefits them and sabotage it when it doesn’t. Andrew Jackson at least had the honesty to say “Now let him enforce it” when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Georgia law couldn’t be enforced on Cherokee lands in 1832. This administration lacks even that level of candor. They want to flirt shamelessly with constitutional crisis without taking off democracy’s wedding ring, because they know that even people who have to google “constitutional crisis” know a tyrant when they see one.
This piece was collaboratively developed using AI for structuring and drafting (30%), with final argumentation, rhetorical refinement, and revisions by the author (70%). You can see my entire conversation with ChatGPT here.
We’re about to be in the Find Out stage of this experiment I think. There’s going to come a day when the checks don’t clear, the vets get turned away at the VA, and the infrastructure can’t be rebuilt.