The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). The court denied a request for a rehearing en banc, meaning the decision made by the smaller panel of judges will stand. This ruling impacts labor unions and their interactions with federal agencies, particularly regarding legal disputes.

The case, officially titled Service Employees International Union v. DOJ, was filed on November 3, 2026, under docket number 26-7303. The plaintiffs in this case include the SEIU, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). These organizations represent various labor and civil rights interests.

The dispute arose from actions taken by the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concerning policies that the unions argued were detrimental to their members and the communities they serve. The unions claimed that these policies violated their rights and sought legal remedies to address the situation. The case was initially heard in the Northern District of California, where the unions presented their arguments against the federal government.

After the initial ruling, the unions sought a rehearing of the decision by the full court, which would involve all active judges in the Ninth Circuit. However, the court ruled that a majority of the nonrecused active judges did not support the rehearing request. As a result, the decision made by the en banc panel remains in effect.

The court's opinion stated, "A majority of the nonrecused active judges did not vote in favor of full court rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the petition for full court rehearing en banc is denied." This indicates that the court is firm in its decision and that the case will not be revisited by a larger panel of judges.

This ruling is significant for labor unions and their ability to challenge federal policies. It reinforces the authority of the Ninth Circuit and sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future. The decision could affect how unions approach disputes with federal agencies, particularly in the context of labor rights and civil rights.

Going forward, this ruling may influence other labor organizations and civil rights groups as they navigate their legal battles with government entities. The denial of a rehearing en banc suggests that the Ninth Circuit is taking a definitive stance on the matter, which may discourage further appeals on similar grounds.

Details were not available in the court filing regarding the specific arguments made by the plaintiffs or the government's response. However, the outcome of this case highlights the ongoing tensions between labor unions and federal agencies, particularly in the context of policy implementation and enforcement.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond just the parties involved. It serves as a reminder of the legal challenges that unions face when contesting government actions. The decision may also embolden other unions to pursue similar legal avenues when they believe their rights are being infringed upon.

As for what’s next, it remains unclear if the plaintiffs will seek further legal recourse or if they will pursue different strategies to address their concerns with the DOJ and DHS. The court filing did not indicate whether there are related cases pending that might influence or be influenced by this ruling.