NJ Attorney General Backs Federal Workers Facing Forced “Fork in the Road” Buyout

NEW JERSEY – In defense of thousands of federal employees nationwide, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin joined a coalition of 21 state attorneys general in an amicus brief challenging the Trump administration’s “Fork in the Road” directive. The plan, abruptly issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on January 28, 2025, forces federal workers to either accept a questionable “buyout” arrangement—with only a few days to decide—or risk potential termination.

“Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s ‘buyout’ scam is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate public servants out of their jobs,” said Attorney General Platkin. “Pushing hard-working federal employees out of the workforce doesn’t only harm the employees themselves, but also the State of New Jersey and our residents who will be deprived of key partners in the federal government and access to critical services. I am proud to file an amicus brief in support of the unions who are working to stop this illegal action.”

The “Fork in the Road” Directive

Under this plan, referred to as “deferred resignation,” most federal employees had until February 6 to choose between:

1. Resigning, yet purportedly retaining pay and benefits until September 30, 2025, without being required to show up for work, or
2. Potentially losing their positions altogether if they decline to resign.

Several labor unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), AFGE Local 3707, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to block what they regard as an illegal and coercive policy. The unions argue that the directive violates federal ethics regulations and fosters confusion among employees, who face an arbitrary and legally suspect ultimatum.

The Legal Dispute

Litigation Status: On February 6, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. halted the directive’s deadline until February 10, scheduling a court hearing at 2 p.m. in Boston to address the unions’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO).

States’ Amicus Brief: Attorney General Platkin and his counterparts filed an amicus brief supporting the unions’ motion for a TRO, underscoring the significant harm that the “Fork in the Road” directive poses to employees and the broader public interest.

Arguments Made:

1. Loss of Federal Expertise: If large numbers of crucial federal employees resign under duress or are dismissed, cooperative intergovernmental services—covering everything from veteran care to disaster response—stand to be severely disrupted.
2. Coercive Tactics: The directive effectively forces employees to “volunteer” for a legally questionable separation package, as the alternative is the uncertainty of job termination.
3. Short Notice: By giving employees only days to decide, the policy creates chaos and “serious doubts about OPM’s compliance with federal law,” according to the unions and states.

Why the Directive Matters to States

In a statement, Attorney General Platkin cautioned that stripping the federal workforce so abruptly would threaten critical services that states rely on for safety nets and collaboration. From the perspective of state governments, these employees perform roles essential to public health, social services, environmental protection, and more. Abrupt vacancies in the federal ranks could delay or derail assistance programs that directly impact local communities.

During the upcoming hearing, the court will weigh whether to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and halt the directive’s implementation while litigation continues. The plaintiff unions hope the judge will recognize the measure’s potentially irreversible damage and preserve the status quo. If the TRO is granted, OPM must suspend the forced resignation plan until a more thorough examination of its legality can be conducted.

Joining Attorney General Platkin are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Each stands to be affected should the Trump administration cut key federal personnel who support a variety of intergovernmental functions.

Anyone following the case can track updates via the Massachusetts District Court docket, or by monitoring official news releases from the respective attorneys general offices. If the directive is ultimately barred, tens of thousands of federal workers may avoid being forced into an untenable—and potentially unlawful—“buyout” decision.

For updates, subscribe to our free newsletter!

Support your local news!