What the Federal 'Loyalty Question' Ruling Means for You

More than 70,000 federal job announcements carried the same essay prompt after OPM's May 2025 merit hiring plan: name executive orders or policy initiatives significant to you and explain how you would help implement them if hired.

On September 11, 2026, U.S. District Judge George O'Toole ordered agencies to remove the question from current postings, directing OPM to notify them by September 18, 2026.

The stay reaches positions at GS-5 and above, cutting across entry-level and mid-career federal policy jobs. It does not stop agencies from weighing answers submitted, leaving a large applicant pool caught between political screening and a judicial reset of merit system limits.

The Ruling: What Judge O'toole Actually Ordered

On September 11, 2026, U.S. District Judge George O'Toole issued a stay order directing federal agencies to remove an essay question from all hiring announcements. The Office of Personnel Management was given until September 18, 2026, to comply with the order and notify agencies that the question should be removed from current postings, according to Federal News Network's report on the ruling.

What the stay does and does not do

The stay is temporary. It remains in effect only until further rulings in the case, and it is not a permanent injunction. O'Toole denied a broader request to block agencies from considering answers applicants had already submitted. That means hiring officials may still review previously collected responses while the litigation proceeds. OPM's underlying directive made the question mandatory for agencies to include, a notable shift in federal agency management practices, but candidates were not required to answer it. The stay applies across all agencies, not just the Department of Veterans Affairs.

How the case reached this point

The American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the National Association of Government Employees first challenged the added essay questions nearly a year before the ruling. Their lawsuit argues that requiring agencies to include the question violates both the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment, principles at stake in Civil Service Reform. The judge's decision relied heavily on testimony from a Department of Veterans Affairs employee who said she feared that refusing to answer would be seen as unfavorable to the president and hurt her applications. Since OPM's directive last year, more than 70,000 federal job announcements have included the essay question, according to Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs.

The Question at Issue: Inside the Merit Hiring Plan's Essay Prompt

What exactly did the contested essay prompt ask federal job applicants to write?

The prompt itself

The question required applicants to name a couple of executive orders or policy initiatives that were "significant" to them and explain how they would help implement those orders if hired. It was not a generic writing sample or a test of public service motivation. Instead, it asked candidates to signal alignment with presidential priorities before an agency could assess their qualifications. For applicants, the wording mattered because answering could require endorsing future implementation work tied to specific executive priorities.

Mandatory to post, optional to answer

This prompt was one of four essay questions introduced under the May 2025 Merit Hiring Plan for federal civil service positions at or above the GS-5 level. The Office of Personnel Management directed agencies that they were required to include the questions in vacancy announcements. At the same time, OPM said candidates were not required to answer them. That split status created practical ambiguity. Applicants had to decide whether leaving the field blank could be interpreted as unfavorable to the president, a concern that later surfaced in the litigation.

Scale of the directive

According to Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs, more than 70,000 federal job announcements have included this specific loyalty question since the OPM directive took effect. Judge O'Toole's stay currently targets only this one prompt. The other three essay questions in the Merit Hiring Plan remain outside the immediate order.

Merit System Principles Vs. Political Loyalty Screening

The tension at the center of the loyalty-question litigation is the same tension every public personnel system must manage, one of the clearest public service leadership lessons: responsiveness to elected leadership versus protection of a career civil service selected on competence rather than partisan alignment.

The Statutory Baseline

5 U.S.C. § 2301 sets out nine merit system principles. Two do the heavy lifting here. Selection should rest on ability, knowledge, and skills under fair and open competition. Personnel actions cannot be based on political affiliation. The principles also shield employees and applicants from coercion for partisan political purposes, a protection that complements the prohibited personnel practice bar in § 2302(b)(1)(E). But these principles use “should,” and courts generally treat them as guiding commitments rather than a standalone damages remedy.

The Loyalty-Oath Line

Connell v. Higginbotham (1971), one of the Loyalty Oath Cases, allowed a constitutional allegiance oath but invalidated vague belief-based disqualification without due process. Wieman v. Updegraff (1952) rejected guilt by membership. Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) struck down overbroad loyalty provisions. Cole v. Richardson (1972) confirmed that oaths cannot condition employment on abandoning First Amendment rights. Elrod, Branti, and Rutan extended those holdings from dismissal to hiring and other personnel decisions, leaving only a narrow exception for jobs where party affiliation is a genuine qualification.

APA and First Amendment Together

Plaintiffs argue the question violates the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing a directive beyond statutory merit-system authority, and violates the First Amendment by screening for political viewpoint. The judge’s stay fits that doctrinal frame: coercive questions, even if nominally optional, can chill protected expression and distort competition. That is why courts give strict scrutiny to political screening in career civil service hiring: the credibility of nonpartisan implementation depends on it.

Related Articles

Compliance Checklist for Agency HR Leaders

OPM's post-stay notice sets out specific handling for the third essay question. Use these steps to bring open announcements, applicant data, and posting templates into line.

• Remove the question from open postings

  Ensure the loyalty-flavored essay prompt is no longer part of any GS-5-or-above announcement. Announcements closing on or before September 25, 2026 do not need to be reposted; for later closing dates, coordinate with OPM.
• Document and communicate the change

  Record the removal date and notify HR specialists, hiring managers, and USAJOBS posting staff so no outdated text remains visible to applicants.
• Stop using prior answers

  Per OPM's notice, do not consider responses already submitted for that question when evaluating candidates for any open vacancy.
• Flag pending decisions for legal review

  Review hiring actions that may have relied on already-submitted answers. The stay did not bar consideration of prior responses, but OPM instructs agencies not to use them; confirm with counsel before proceeding.
• Brief staff on future prompts

  Before adding any similar essay wording, explain the Administrative Procedure Act and First Amendment exposure. Avoid optional questions that still read as loyalty tests.
• Verify USA Staffing replacement

  For announcements opening September 19, 2026 or later, confirm the previous question has been replaced in USA Staffing and update agency-specific templates accordingly.

These loyalty questions are a blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.

AFSCME President Patrick Moran

Federal Career Pathways and Salary Context for Public Administrators

For public administrators tracking federal career progression, BLS data offers useful context for the senior leadership roles many MPA and MPP graduates target. The 2025 OEWS estimates below are recent approximations, not current-year figures, and the median-to-75th-percentile range shows how earnings tend to rise beyond entry-level GS-5 federal positions.