President Donald Trump gestures as he speaks in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House after a shooting incident outside the ballroom at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner in Washington, Saturday, April 25, 2026, as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel listen (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana).
A federal district judge in Washington state has denied a late request by the Trump administration for more time to file a major brief in litigation over organized labor and collective bargaining rights.
On Tuesday afternoon, the U.S. Department of Justice requested a two-week extension to file a response to the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction in the case styled as United Power Trades Organization v. Trump. The defendants asked to respond by Aug. 18.
But the government's request came the very same day their response was due — the plaintiffs had previously filed their motion for an injunction in mid-July. Moreover, the request was filed at 4:14 p.m., near the close of business for the day, and the court was not happy.
"The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants' motion to extend time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction for failure to show good cause and for violation of the local rules," U.S. District Judge Lauren J. King, a Joe Biden appointee, ruled.
The terse minute order, citing the aforementioned local rules, acknowledges the court's authority to " for good cause, extend the time," but suggests the DOJ simply waited far too long to file the request.
"A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline," the order concludes, citing another rule. "Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted and must comply with the existing deadline unless the court orders otherwise."
The DOJ responded by re-filing the extension request. The second attempt is longer than the first. The original request was three pages long; the new request is six pages long.
The new request also offers an excuse for the delay.
"Approximately one month after it filed the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, with a noting date of August 11, 2026," the revamped request reads. "Plaintiff mailed a copy of the Motion to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which it received on July 20, 2026. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, the mailed Motion did not come to undersigned counsel's attention until today, August 4, which is also the date that Defendants' response to the Motion is due."
The second-try motion goes on to issue a mea culpa as well.
"While the U.S. Attorney's Office has not yet been able to ascertain exactly how or why this mistake occurred, this Office appreciates that it is our responsibility to be aware of motions properly served on this Office and to respond to them in a timely manner, rather than ask for relief from a court deadline at the last hour," the filing reads.
That admission of fault is sourced from a substantially similar document penned by Assistant U.S. Attorney James Strong, who works out of the currently embattled Western District of Washington.
Strong's declaration offers a more detailed timeline of fault.
From that filing:
At approximately 2:00 p.m., on August 4, 2026, I learned that Plaintiff had filed a motion for preliminary injunction on July 14, 2026, and had mailed a copy of the motion to the U.S. Attorney's Office, which was received on July 20, 2026.I did not receive either the mailed copy of the Motion from our mailroom staff, or an email notifying me about the Motion. Instead, I learned about the Motion after happening upon a scanned version of it located on our shared file drive on August 4, 2026.
To that end, Strong says "it is impossible to file a timely response by the due date." And, for at least the third time, the government says the plaintiffs in the case have "no objection" to the extension.
Strong's two-page personal affidavit then apologizes once again.
"At this point, I do not know exactly how or why this mistake occurred," the filing concludes. "I have raised this issue with my management within the Civil Division. Both management and I appreciate that it is our Office's responsibility to be aware of motions properly served on this Office and to respond to them in a timely manner, rather than ask for relief from a court deadline at the last hour."
The underlying lawsuit was filed by the union representing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The litigation aims to stop the federal government from terminating its collective bargaining agreement. In an executive order issued in late March 2025, President Donald Trump stated that the union was no longer the formal representative body for the Corps' workers.