When the federal government shut down in September 2025, thousands of U.S. Department of Education employees found themselves not only out of work but also unexpectedly thrust into the heart of a political storm. As their email accounts automatically replied to incoming messages, what should have been neutral, routine notices instead delivered a pointed political message—one that many workers did not write, approve, or even see coming. This episode, now the subject of a landmark court ruling, has sparked a national conversation about the boundaries of political messaging in the federal workforce and the constitutional rights of civil servants.
The controversy began as Congress deadlocked over funding, leading to a lapse in appropriations and a partial government shutdown. As is standard practice, furloughed employees were told to set up out-of-office email responses. The Department of Education even provided suggested wording: "We are unable to respond to your request due to a lapse in appropriations for the Department of Education. We will respond to your request when appropriations are enacted. Thank you." Straightforward, right?
But on the first day of the shutdown, department leadership took a dramatic turn. According to NPR, the deputy chief of staff for operations overrode staffers' personal messages and replaced them with a new autoreply: "Thank you for contacting me. On September 19, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution. Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate which has led to a lapse in appropriations. Due to the lapse in appropriations I am currently in furlough status. I will respond to emails once government functions resume."
This message, written in the first person, was sent from the accounts of individual employees—many of whom had no idea their own words had been replaced with partisan language. Several workers told NPR the message did not reflect their views and that they were not notified about the change. The new out-of-office note closely mirrored the political messaging of Republican leaders and the White House, singling out Senate Democrats as the cause of the shutdown.
For the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation’s largest federal employee union representing more than 2,000 Education Department staff, this was a step too far. The union filed a lawsuit, arguing that the department’s actions forced workers to become unwilling participants in a partisan blame game, violating their First Amendment rights. As Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE Local 252, put it in a statement quoted by NPR, "This ridiculous ploy by the Trump administration was a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of the workers at the Education Department. It is one of the many ways the Department’s leadership has threatened, harassed and demoralized these hardworking public servants in the last 10 months."
On November 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper issued a decisive ruling. According to The Washington Post, Cooper found that the Department of Education had indeed violated the First Amendment by compelling employees to disseminate a political viewpoint they had not chosen. "Nonpartisanship is the bedrock of the federal civil service; it ensures that career government employees serve the public, not the politicians," Cooper wrote in his decision. "But by commandeering its employees’ e-mail accounts to broadcast partisan messages, the Department chisels away at that foundation."
Cooper went further, emphasizing the importance of the Hatch Act of 1939, a law designed to protect federal employees from political pressure and to ensure that government programs are administered in a nonpartisan manner. "Political officials are free to blame whomever they wish for the shutdown, but they cannot use rank-and-file civil servants as their unwilling spokespeople. The First Amendment stands in their way. The Department’s conduct therefore must cease," he wrote, as reported by NPR.
In addition to finding a constitutional violation, Judge Cooper issued a permanent injunction. The Department of Education was ordered to immediately restore personalized out-of-office messages for union members or, if that wasn’t possible, to remove the partisan language from all employees’ accounts. This block applies not only to the current shutdown but to any future closures, ensuring that similar directives cannot be imposed on Education Department workers represented by the AFGE.
The department’s leadership, for its part, had previously defended the partisan message. Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications, told NPR at the time, "The email reminds those who reach out to Department of Education employees that we cannot respond because Senate Democrats are refusing to vote for a clean CR and fund the government. Where’s the lie?" Nevertheless, the department did not respond to requests for comment following the court’s decision.
For many federal workers, the ruling was about more than just email. The shutdown had already inflicted real hardship—delayed paychecks, uncertainty, and stress. To be pulled into a public political dispute, especially through their official government communications, only heightened the sense of being caught in the crossfire. The union has long argued that federal employees must remain politically neutral to maintain public trust in government institutions. Compelling them to promote partisan viewpoints, they say, undermines that trust and erodes the professionalism of the civil service.
Judge Cooper’s decision was clear: when Americans enter public service, they do not sign away their constitutional rights. "When government employees enter public service, they do not sign away their First Amendment rights," he wrote. "And they certainly do not sign up to be a billboard for any given administration’s partisan views." The ruling drew a firm line between the rights of political appointees to express their opinions and the rights of career civil servants to remain nonpartisan.
The case has broader implications for the relationship between politics and the federal workforce. The Hatch Act, cited by Judge Cooper, has stood for more than 80 years as a bulwark against the politicization of government service. By reaffirming its principles, the court signaled that even during times of national crisis, the integrity and neutrality of the civil service cannot be sacrificed for political gain.
As the dust settles, federal employees and their advocates see the ruling as a victory for both constitutional rights and the public interest. The episode serves as a reminder that, even in the midst of political battles, the rules of fairness and neutrality must prevail. The First Amendment, as Judge Cooper made plain, stands as a safeguard not only for individual workers but for the very foundation of public service in America.
