text:
Missouri Criminal Justice Schools
Home to over 40 accredited colleges and universities offering programs in criminal justice, Missouri is an ideal place to pursue an education in criminal justice. Schools in the state offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in diverse specializations within the criminal justice field, including behavior analysis, law enforcement, forensic science, and military studies. A number of schools, such as Columbia College, Drury University, and Missouri Southern State University, also offer criminal justice degree programs online.
There are 47 schools offering criminal justice degrees in Missouri (see below).1
18 colleges and universities offer associate's degrees in criminal justice.*1
32 colleges and universities offer bachelor's degrees in criminal justice.*1
15 colleges and universities offer master's or doctoral degrees in criminal justice.*1
29 colleges and universities offer criminal justice degree programs online.*1
2 schools ranked in Kiplinger's Best Values in Public Colleges in 2018.2
4 schools ranked in College Factual's Best Criminal Justice & Corrections Colleges in 2018.3
1 school ranked in Criminal Justice Degree Schools Best Online Bachelor's Programs in 2018.4
2 schools ranked in US News Best Online Graduate Criminal Justice Programs in 2018.5
*For not-for-profit colleges and universities with criminal justice degree programs.
Criminal Justice Degree Programs in Missouri
Earning a degree or certification in criminal justice can expand your career opportunities and help ensure job security while boosting salary compensation compared to those who lack specialized training. Whether you set your sights on certification or a degree program, you're bound to find a school that fits the bill in Missouri. Instruction is available in areas of criminal justice ranging from cybersecurity and forensic science to criminology, juvenile justice, and corrections. An associate's or bachelor's degree can prepare candidates for careers in airport security or US Customs, or even working for the Secret Service, CIA, or DEA. An advanced degree is preparation for professions including district attorney, criminal investigator, and counter-intelligence or FBI agent. Many Missouri schools also offer criminal justice degrees that can be completed online.
Top-Ranked Schools with Criminal Justice Programs in Missouri
Kiplinger's Best Values in Public Colleges 2018*
Truman State University (#19 in-state, #8 out-of-state)
University of Missouri (#74 in-state, #69 out-of-state)
*Institution-wide ranking.
College Factual's Best Criminal Justice & Corrections Colleges 2018
Saint Louis University (#97)
Truman State University (#160)
Drury University (#186)
University of Missouri – Kansas City (#193)
Criminal Justice Degree Schools Best Online Bachelor's Programs 2018
US News Best Online Graduate Criminal Justice Programs 2018
Southeast Missouri State University (#11)
Columbia College (#18)
Profiles of Well-Known Schools in Missouri
Missouri State University: Missouri State University has the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice where students can pursue a bachelor's or master's in Criminology, a Homeland Security and Defense Graduate Certificate, or a Master of Science in Administrative Studies – Criminal Justice Option. Students can network and gain access to resources through two student organizations, the CJ Society and Alpha Phi Sigma (Criminal Justice Honor Society). The Center for Social Science and Public Policy Research (CSSPPR) provides students with the opportunity to become more knowledgeable regarding survey research and public opinion polling. For students who wish to supplement their classroom time with professional experience, NSU has a list of dozens of community partners that take interns.
Truman State University: Truman State University offers a Bachelor of Science in Justice Systems. The program is research-oriented and offers opportunities for study abroad as well as internships that help students develop hands-on experience in preparation for the workforce. Core courses include Juvenile Delinquency; The Rehabilitative System; and Senior Seminar. Approximately 40% of justice systems majors have gone on to graduate school or law school. The justice systems department prides itself on encouraging peer-to-peer interactions, small class sizes, and individualized attention to each student. Justice systems majors may wish to consider adding the interdisciplinary Forensic Science minor, which offers two tracks: lab-oriented forensic DNA or lab-oriented forensic chemistry. Students pursuing a different major may also choose to take a minor in justice systems.
College of the Ozarks: The bachelor's program in Criminal Justice at the College of the Ozarks allows students to specialize in either Corrections or Law Enforcement. The criminal justice core prepares students for careers in local, state, and federal government as well as private security. The college recommends that criminal justice majors choose a second major or minor to complement the degree, such as Computer Science, Psychology, Sociology, or Spanish. Required courses include Criminal Evidence, Police Field Services, Criminal Law and Procedure, and Interview and Interrogation. A senior capstone, which includes research and scenario-based testing, is also mandatory. Interested students may join the school's Criminal Justice Club, which offers opportunities for job shadowing, firearms practice, criminal justice agency tours, and more. All students at the College of the Ozarks participate in the school's work education program, which involves working 15 hours each week at an assigned job on-campus; the work education program helps students cover the cost of undergraduate study at College of the Ozarks.
Notable Alumni from Missouri Universities
Jay Nixon, Governor of Missouri 2009-2017 – University of Missouri
Colonel Sandra K. Karsten, Superintendent of the Missouri State Highway Patrol – Truman State University (bachelor's), University of Missouri (master's)
Police Quote: "When I was going through the field training class with my field training officer (a retired Navy Chief), he told me this that at first, I didn't understand but now rings true: He told me that when I got off duty and was living my personal life to not surround myself with only law enforcement friends. I took that advice and had friends with other careers outside of law enforcement. That was 16 years ago and I believe that advice helps me stay focused and not get the 'burned out' feeling a lot of the officers/deputies get. Don't get me wrong, I have great friends in law enforcement, but, sometimes you need to step away and get away from all the negativity we see on a daily basis." -Sergeant Ted Roy
Missouri Criminal Justice Careers
There are numerous opportunities to work in criminal justice in Missouri. While not all opportunities require an associate's or bachelor's degree, a growing number of employers are showing preference towards hiring college graduates. The Missouri State Highway Patrol, for example, requires that applicants who do not have military experience have completed at least 30 college credit hours. Other departments may offer educational pay incentives or fast-track options for promotion for those who have at least an associate's degree.
Many careers in criminal justice offer competitive pay and attractive benefits. Police officers and patrol officers earn an annual average wage of $46,230 in the state of Missouri while police first-line supervisors earn an average of $73,490.6,8 The paralegal field has a positive outlook with average annual earnings of $46,640 in Missouri.9 Correctional officers are paid an average of $30,320 and criminal investigators and detectives earn $69,800 per year in the state.4,6
Missouri Criminal Justice Salary and Jobs
Number Employed
Correctional Officers and Jailers 8,260 $30,320
First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives 2,250 $73,490
Detectives and Criminal Investigators 1,560 $69,800
Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers 13,030 $46,230
Data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as of May 2015.5,6,7,8
Missouri's Criminal Justice Employment Outlook
The May 2016 unemployment rate for Missouri was 4.3%, slightly below the national average of 4.7%.10 The 10-year state unemployment peak was recorded at 9.7% in December 2009.10 Government-related employment is a good proxy for criminal justice jobs in Missouri. Projections Central includes the following criminal justice job projections for Missouri:
Police and Sheriff Patrol: 520 annual openings; 46% in these positions report completing at least some college, with 24% holding an associate's degree.11,12
Correctional Officers: 250 annual openings; 37% in these positions report completing at least some college, with 15% holding a post-secondary certificate.11,13
Detectives and Criminal Investigators: 50 annual openings; 37% in these positions report completing at least some college, with 21% holding an associate's degree.11,14
Security Guards: 330 annual openings; 4% in these positions report completing at least some college.11,15
Paralegals and Legal Assistants: 140 annual openings; 86% in these positions report completing at least some college, with 30% holding an associate's degree and 44% holding a bachelor's degree.11,16
Forensic Science Technicians: 20 annual openings; these positions typically require a bachelor's degree.11
These positions are based on estimates for employment growth as well as replacements.
The Mercatus Center is a conservative think tank that analyzed and rated the long-term solvency of each state government. Missouri was ranked 14th in the nation based on an examination of its budgeting process, cash/tax collection, and pensions.17 This indicates that it is likely the state will be able to fulfill its pension obligations.
Copy and Paste the following HTML code to add this infographic to your site:
Infographic by Criminal Justice Degree Schools
Directory of Missouri Universities Offering Campus-based and Online Criminal Justice Degrees
If you live in Missouri, we recommend an accredited campus-based or online program for pursuing your associate's, bachelor's, or master's degree in the growing field of criminal justice.
Tip: If you don't live near a campus-based school that offers a program of interest, consider an online degree or a university in an adjacent state (Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, or Oklahoma)
Schools with Online and On-Campus Criminal Justice Programs
Note: Student Reviews are based on the experiences of a few individuals and it is unlikely that you will have similar results. Please review the "Data, Student Reviews and Other Information" section in our Terms of Use and Disclaimers.
Central Methodist University (Fayette)
Bachelor of Arts/ Science | Criminal Justice (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Science | Applied Behavior Analysis
Minor | Criminal Justice
Minor | Applied Law Enforcement
Program | Military Science: Army, Air Force ROTC
Columbia College (Columbia)
Associate of Science | Criminal Justice Administration (online or on-campus)
Associate of Science | Human Services (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice Administration (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Arts | Human Services (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice Administration (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Science | Forensic Science
Bachelor of Science | Human Services (online or on-campus)
Master of Science | Criminal Justice
Master of Science | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement Administration
Master of Science | Criminal Justice: Corrections Administration
Master of Arts | Military Studies
Minor | Criminal Justice Administration
Minor | Human Services
Certificate | Crime Scene Investigation
Program | ROTC
Student Review: "My college experience was atypical; most of my college experience took place in an online environment while I worked full time as a police officer. Prior to my online enrollment, I did attend a local 'commuter' state college for a short time (just after graduating high school) but I did less well there than I could have because I did not really want to be there at the time and took the experience less seriously than I should have. Later, after completing the Academy, I wanted to go back and complete my degree in order to advance my career, and with the desire to do well came greatly improved academic performance. I sometimes wonder how it would have been to have experienced the 'traditional' college experience, but the flexibility of the online format fit my life perfectly at the time I was enrolled." -Stewart D., student at Columbia College
Student Review: "The program was completed online which was beneficial to my work schedule. A majority of the classes in the program are geared toward the criminal justice student who needs the general requirements of criminal justice to complete the degree. Some of the 400 level classes were harder and would have been better if they would have been in seat classes. The class sizes were perfect for the content of the classes. Just enough people to get into good discussions, but not so many that you were just a number. I received a lot of support after the loss of our son, and the professors worked with me on deadlines and any needs I had to complete assignments. If I could change anything, it would be creating specialties within the program, there are not enough classes so that you can focus on one specific criminal justice area that you are interested in. I wanted to work with youth offenders, and there were not enough classes specifically detailing problems for youth and youth offenders." -Student at Columbia College
Drury University (Springfield)
Associate of Science | Emergency Management (online)
Associate of Science | Law Enforcement (online)
Associate of Science | Criminal Justice (online)
Bachelor of Arts | Criminology
Bachelor of Science | Emergency Management (online)
Bachelor of Science | Human Services (online)
Bachelor of Science | Law Enforcement (online)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice (online)
Master of Education | Human Services (online)
Minor | Criminology
Minor | Law and Society
Lindenwood University (Saint Charles)
Bachelor of Arts | Chemistry: Forensics
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice: Legal Studies
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice: Corrections/Probation & Parole
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice: Corrections/Juvenile
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement with Police Academy
Bachelor of Arts | International Relations: Security Studies
Bachelor of Science | Cyber Security
Minor | Military Science
Program | Army or Air Force ROTC
Student Review: "I love Lindenwood. I am in the communications department and studying interactive media and web design. I will have to say the best part is the professors. I have had very few bad professors in my time being at Lindenwood. They actually care! If you e-mail them they will give you a good response and they will actually sit down and take time to help you if you need it. My negative comment about Lindenwood is two things, I lived on campus for one semester and hated it, there is no interaction or fun on campus. No one gets involved in anything. If you are looking for a University experience this is not the school for that. It is very education focused. Also, they use paperwork for everything. I don't think they know how to use computers in the administration area of the school. Just be prepared for a hassle." -Kels H., student at Lindenwood University
Maryville University of Saint Louis (Saint Louis)
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice/Criminology
Bachelor of Arts | Forensic Psychology/Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Arts | Forensic Science: Biology
Bachelor of Arts | Forensic Science: Chemistry
Bachelor of Science | Accounting Systems and Forensics
Master of Science | Cyber Security (online)
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Cybersecurity
Minor | Cybersecurity
Mineral Area College (Park Hills)
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Correctional Administration
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Forensic Investigation
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Judicial Administration
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Security Management
Certificate | Law Enforcement
Certificate | Law Enforcement Academy
Missouri Baptist University (Saint Louis)
Bachelor of Arts | Behavioral Science
Bachelor of Science | Behavioral Science
Master of Science | Criminal Justice (online)
Master of Science | Corporate Security Leadership (online)
Minor | Behavioral Science
Missouri Southern State University (Joplin)
Associate of Science | Law Enforcement
Associate of Science | Law Enforcement: Basic Law Enforcement Academy
Minor | Corrections (online or on-campus)
Minor | Criminal Justice Administration (online or on-campus)
Minor | Crime Scene Investigation
Minor | Juvenile Justice (online or on-campus)
Certificate | Safety & Hazard Prevention (online)
Missouri State University-West Plains (West Plains)
Associate of Applied Science | Law Enforcement
Bachelor of Science | Criminology
Master of Science | Criminology and Criminal Justice (online)
Certificate | Public Outreach and Education
North Central Missouri College (Trenton)
Associate of Arts | Criminal Justice (transfer degree)
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice (online or on-campus)
Certificate | Criminal Justice
Park University (Parkville)
Associate of Science | Criminal Justice Administration
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice Administration
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice Administration
Bachelor of Science | Military History (online)
Bachelor of Public Administration | Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Public Administration | Public Service
Bachelor of Public Administration | Homeland Security
Certificate | Terrorism and Homeland Security
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Disaster and Emergency Management
Student Review: "My experience with Park University was a good one. I liked the fact that the online classes were taught in a way that allowed for different learning styles. Park is a big fan of training students how to function as a team in the workplace and the experience I obtained from this has greatly helped me in my career field. Although Park teaches the majority of their students online or at remote military campuses, there is a sense of community among the students. Park University is also a very diverse school and offers the students a chance to learn about other cultures and lifestyles. The teachers were knowledgeable and almost always willing to help out. The only downside for me was that the administrative staff wasn't always the best. I had trouble with them losing documents and having to do paperwork twice a few times. Overall, I am glad to be a graduate and would take classes there again." -Jennifer F., student at Park University
Student Review: "The program was somewhat of a challenge for me. I really enjoyed the course content, mainly in regards to learning about the due processes, from the beginning of an investigation all the way up to the prosecution of a suspect. A big challenge for me during this program was the fine guidelines for prosecution and investigations, see all of the hoops you have to jump through in order to get search warrants or convictions. Although the courses were challenging at times, a lot of schools from my understanding help you work with local police departments to better understand the criminal justice system and how everything flows." -Student at Park University
St. Louis Community College (Kirkwood; Saint Louis)
Associate of Arts | Criminal Justice
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Corrections (online)
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement (online)
Associate of Applied Science | Human Services
Certificate of Proficiency | Law Enforcement (online)
Certificate of Proficiency | Corrections (online)
Certificate of Proficiency | Human Services: Addictions Study
Saint Louis University (St. Louis)
Bachelor of Arts | Criminology and Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Science | Security and Strategic Intelligence (hybrid online)
Master of Arts | Criminology and Criminal Justice
Master of Science | Cybersecurity (online or on-campus)
Master of Science | Strategic Intelligence (online or on-campus)
Minor | Criminology and Criminal Justice
Minor | Emergency Management
Minor | Forensic Science
Minor | Global and Local Social Justice
Graduate Certificate | Biosecurity and Disaster Preparedness
Graduate Certificate | Global and Local Social Justice
Southeast Missouri State University (Cape Girardeau)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Criminology (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Corrections (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Science | Chemistry: DNA Analysis
Bachelor of Science | Chemistry: Forensic Chemistry
Bachelor of Science | Chemistry: Forensic Science
Bachelor of Science | Communication Disorders
Bachelor of Science | Cybersecurity
Master of Science | Criminal Justice (online or on-campus)
Minor | Geographic Information Systems
Minor | Substance Abuse Prevention
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Psychological Examiner
University of Central Missouri (Warrensburg)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice (online or on-campus)
Bachelor of Science | Crisis and Disaster Management
Bachelor of Science | Forensic Chemistry
Bachelor of Science | Safety Management
Bachelor of Science/ Master of Science | Criminal Justice (Dual Degree program)
Master of Science | Cybersecurity and Information Assurance
Minor | Corrections
Minor | International Justice
Minor | Safety
Certificate | Applied Behavior Analysis
Certificate | Emergency Management
Certificate | Emergency Services Management
University of Missouri-St. Louis (St. Louis)
Bachelor of Science | Criminology and Criminal Justice (online, hybrid online, or on-campus)
PhD | Criminology and Criminal Justice
Minor | Child Advocacy Studies
Minor | Military History and Logistics
Minor | Public Law
Certificate | Child Advocacy Studies
Certificate | Criminology and Criminal Justice
Certificate | Cybersecurity (pending program)
Certificate | Gender and Military
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Applied Behavior Analysis
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Trauma Studies
Student Review: "I loved it at UMSL it was a great experience that was affordable and allowed me to grow as a student and as a person. It was a great alternative from the normal four-year college choices that are around my area. UMSL is a school where most of the people travel to the school and there is little on-campus action. UMSL is located right off Highway 70 and is very easy to find and get to during main transit hours. Also as a student, you receive a free Metro Pass which is great if you live closer inside the city of St.Louis." -Paul O., student at University of Missouri-St. Louis
Webster University (Saint Louis)
Certificate | Diversity and Identity in the US
Certificate | Migration and Refugee Studies
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Cybersecurity: Threat Detection (online or on-campus)
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Applied Behavior Analysis (online or on-campus)
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Psychoeducational Needs of Immigrant and Refugee Youth (online)
Schools with On-Campus Criminal Justice Programs Only
Avila University (Kansas City)
Bachelor of Arts | Criminology and Justice Studies
College of the Ozarks (Point Lookout)
Bachelor of Arts/ Science | Criminal Justice: Corrections
Bachelor of Arts/ Science | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement
Minor | Family Studies and Social Services
Student Review: "We had excellent faculty who were very knowledgeable about the real world aspect of Criminal Justice. I did feel like there wasn't a lot of money allocated to the department to spend on helpful things. In addition to the faculty there were several guests that we had from government agencies as well as local departments; this helped to give well rounded expectations of the Criminal Justice career. Probably my biggest complaint was that the program did not provide the certifications that I required to pursue the career that I wanted. This is very unfortunate as other schools of similar quality in the area do provide these certifications to their graduates. This would have saved money and time on my part. It is possible that with more money allocated to the department the certifications would be able to be provided. This seemed to me like an administrative problem. My overall experience at College of the Ozarks was amazing and life changing. I loved the unique experiences that the school provided and I made lifelong friends in the process. The Spiritual and Patriotic goals of College of the Ozarks make it worthy of high praise." -Student at College of the Ozarks
Student Review: "The staff within the Criminal Justice department was very knowledgeable and willing to help educate about to realities of the Criminal Justice field. I was dissatisfied with not receiving all of the qualifications that I needed to be a police officer. Most notable my Missouri POST qualifications were not included in this program while at other schools this is included. However, the great experiences that I had were very worthwhile and educational. There were a lot of fun things like the annual mock crime scene that the department conducts to give students an idea of how a crime scene is run." -Student at College of the Ozarks
Crowder College (Neosho)
Culver-Stockton College (Canton)
Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences | Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Forensic Accounting
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Forensic Science
Minor | Forensic Accounting
East Central College (Union)
Evangel University (Springfield)
Bachelor of Arts/ Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Science | Human Services
Minor | Military Science (ROTC)
Hannibal-Lagrange University (Hannibal)
Bachelor of Applied Science | Criminal Justice
Harris-Stowe State University (Saint Louis)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Juvenile Justice
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement
Bachelor of Science | Sociology: Law, Justice, and Society
Bachelor of Science | Sociology: Social Justice
Jefferson College (Hillsboro)
Associate of Applied Science | Computer Information Systems: Criminal Justice Cyber Security
Certificate | Criminal Justice (POST)
Student Review: "Jefferson College was a good choice for me to attend when I needed to earn a few credit hours to get back on track at my main university. Jeffco is a community college with three campuses, including one close to my residence, so it was extremely convenient to stop by and take a test. During my time at Jeffco, I took several online classes. These classes were really nice since they allowed me to continue school work at one university and then come home to work on the Jeffco classwork. The two largest downfalls I experienced was the fact that some professors either didn't seem to know the material they were teaching, or they didn't allow off-campus testing, which would have been nice on my longer days at another facility." -Jasmine K., student at Jefferson College
Lincoln University (Jefferson City)
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice Administration: General
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice Administration: Law Enforcement
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice Administration: Research
Program | Army ROTC
Metropolitan Community College (Independence; Kansas City; Lees Summit)
Associate of Applied Science | Computer Science and Information Systems: Cyber Security
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Corrections
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Juvenile Services
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Police Science
Associate of Applied Science | Forensic Chemistry (Affiliated program with KCKCC)
Technical Certificate | Police Science
Short-Term Certificate | Geographic Information Systems
Student Review: "I first attended Metropolitan Community College at the Kansas City, MO campus. The campus itself felt safe and secure, considering its downtown location, and the facilities were much more than I initially expected. The instructors were more willing to work one-on-one than some of my high school teachers had been. Overall, everyone I met in KC encouraged me to get as involved as possible and to follow my dreams. I found the same when I switched campuses. I chose MCC so I could stay close enough to home to see my younger sister graduate, and soon we will be attending together – maybe even sharing classes. I appreciate the start MCC gave me for my education and the people I met that allowed me to flourish." -Sarah W., student at Metropolitan Community College
Missouri Valley College (Marshall)
Minor | Alcohol & Drug Studies
Missouri Western State University (Saint Joseph)
Associate of Science | Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Administration
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Corrections
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Juvenile Delinquency
Bachelor of Science | Criminal Justice: Legal Studies
Bachelor of Science | Pre-Major: Criminal Justice
Minor | Peace & Conflict Studies
Minor | Gender & Power Studies
Moberly Area Community College (Moberly)
Ozarks Technical Community College (Springfield)
Student Review: "The Criminology and Criminal Justice department and course of study at Ozarks Technical Community College provided me with a great learning opportunity in order to advance my knowledge and studies within my field. There are a number of amazing instructors that have a large amount of real-world experience working in their respective subject areas. With staff ranging from corrections officers to the Director of the United States Marshalls Service, to retired police officers, there are a plethora of individuals ready to prepare you for the future of criminology and criminal justice. One of the greatest moments in my program of study was having the pleasure of taking multiple courses with Andrea Logan-Jones, who has previous experience working as a correctional and probation officer. She taught Introduction to Criminology, Community Based Corrections, and Introduction to Policing among other required courses. She had ample office hours and was always willing to help a student regardless of their past performance in her courses. The program prepared me extremely well for continuing my undergraduate degree in Criminology." -Student at Ozarks Technical Community College
Southwest Baptist University (Bolivar)
Student Review "Attending Southwest Baptist University was a very rewarding experience. The criminal justice department was small so I was able to get more help and advice when it was needed. The staff was very understanding and very open to communication. The campus was just the right size and offered all the necessities. The classes were challenging which helped me learn and become more disciplined to study. There were plenty of opportunities to become involved in groups and organizations related to my degree as well as other campus activities. The one thing about SBU that I would have done without was the mandatory chapel attendance. As a non-traditional student and parent, it was hard for me to make childcare and work arrangements in order to attend chapel. I believe that I received a great education from SBU and would attend again if I had to do it all over." -Alicia Z., student at Southwest Baptist University
St. Charles Community College (Cottleville)
Associate of Applied Science | Addictions
Associate of Applied Science | Victimology
Associate of Applied Science | Cyber Security
Associate of Science | Cyber Security
Certificate of Specialization | Computer Security
Certificate of Achievement | Law Enforcement
State Fair Community College (Sedalia)
Bachelor's Degree | Criminal Justice (joint program with Central Methodist University)
Skills Certificate | Information Security
Three Rivers College (Poplar Bluff)
Associate of Arts | Forensic Science
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Law Enforcement option
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: Corrections option
Associate of Applied Science | Criminal Justice: P.O.S.T. Academy
Associate of Applied Science | Geographic Information Systems
Associate of Science | Administration of Justice
Certificate | Criminal Justice: P.O.S.T. Academy
Certificate | Geographic Information Systems Technology
Truman State University (Kirksville)
Bachelor of Science | Justice Systems
Minor | Justice Systems
Student Review: "Truman State University is an excellent mid-western liberal arts college. Truman is often ranked in national collegiate rankings as a "high value" or "best buy" school because of the quality of education Truman students receive in relation to the total costs of attendance. I have found this reputation to be absolutely true as Truman professors are masters in their fields and very knowledgeable about the subject matter that they teach. At Truman, most courses are taught completely by professors with very little graduate student involvement. This and the small class sizes allow students to really engage themselves in their own education and work closely with their professors, resulting in an excellent overall education. I found that the campus is beautiful and the educational resources are abundant. There is always a place for everyone whether they are looking to study, research, use technology or just find a place on the quad for a quick game of catch. The older dorms are kept up nicely and the newer dorms are like three-star hotels. The food is decent and although Kirksville can be less than exciting, Truman itself is an outstanding institution." -Matt N., student at Truman State University
Student Review: "The Criminal Justice program at Truman State was one of the most enjoyable parts of my undergraduate experience. The program is taught by those who have or are currently working in their field (such as forensic scientists, child welfare agents, and lawyers) this really enhanced the program, as the information was current and had real-world applications. Having professors who hold jobs in the criminal justice field also adds networking benefits for students going through this program of study. Though the major is small, it has a good number of classes offered in a variety of subjects, both covering research and theory as well as law and the history of criminal justice. The small classes allow professors to really get to know their students and take an active role in their education. Unlike other majors, while studying criminal justice at Truman, you are able to make personal connections with the professors and other students." -Student at Truman State University
University of Missouri-Kansas City (Kansas City)
Bachelor of Arts | Criminal Justice & Criminology
Bachelor of Arts | Communications Studies: Interpersonal and Public Communication
Master of Science | Criminal Justice and Criminology
Juris Doctor | Child & Family Law
Minor | Criminal Justice and Criminology
Certificate | Geographic Information Systems
Post-Baccalaureate Certificate | Geographic Information Systems
William Woods University (Fulton)
Minor | Juvenile Justice
1. National Center for Education Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/
2. Kiplinger's Best Values in Public Colleges: https://www.kiplinger.com/tool/college/T014-S001-kiplinger-s-best-values-in-public-colleges/index.php
3. College Factual Best Criminal Justice & Corrections Colleges: https://www.collegefactual.com/majors/protective-security-safety-services/criminal-justice-and-corrections/rankings/top-ranked/
4. US News Best Online Graduate Criminal Justice Programs: https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/criminal-justice/rankings
5. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 Occupational Employment and Wages, Correctional Officers and Jailers https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333012.htm
6. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 Occupational Employment and Wages, First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes331012.htm
7. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 Occupational Employment and Wages, Detectives and Criminal Investigators: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333021.htm
8. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 Occupational Employment and Wages, Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes333051.htm
9. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2015 Occupational Employment and Wages, Paralegals and Legal Assistants: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes232011.htm
10. Y Charts 10 Year Unemployment Chart: http://https://ycharts.com/indicators/missouri_unemployment_rate
11. Projections Central Long Term Occupational Projections: http://www.projectionscentral.com/Projections/LongTerm
12. O*Net OnLine, Police Patrol Officers: https://www.onetonline.org/link/details/33-3051.01
13. O*Net OnLine, Correctional Officers and Jailers: https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/33-3012.00
14. O*Net OnLine, Police Detectives: https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/33-3021.01
15. O*Net OnLine, Security Guards: https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/33-9032.00
16. O*Net OnLine, Paralegals and Legal Assistants: https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/23-2011.00
17. Mercatus Center, George Mason University, Ranking the States by Fiscal Condition 2016 Edition: https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings


text:
package com.pkrharrison.tablegen.hands;

import com.pkrharrison.gameplay.Card;

public final class FullHouse extends RankedHand {

	// full house is "trips over pair"
	private Card.Rank trips;
	private Card.Rank pair;

	private FullHouse(Card[] cards) {
		super(cards);
	}

	public static FullHouse newHand(Card[] cards) {
		// XXXYY or XXYYY

		// these checks assume cards are sorted

		if (cards[0].rank() == cards[2].rank() && cards[3].rank() == cards[4].rank()) {
			// XXXYY
			FullHouse hand = new FullHouse(cards);
			hand.trips = cards[0].rank();
			hand.pair = cards[3].rank();
			return hand;

		} else if (cards[0].rank() == cards[1].rank() && cards[2].rank() == cards[4].rank()) {
			// XXYYY
			FullHouse hand = new FullHouse(cards);
			hand.trips = cards[2].rank();
			hand.pair = cards[0].rank();
			return hand;
		}

		return null;
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(StraightFlush hand) {
		 return -1;
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(Quads hand) {
		return -1;

	}

	@Override
	public int compare(FullHouse hand) {
		if (this.trips.compareTo(hand.trips) == 0) {
			return this.pair.compareTo(hand.pair);
		}
		return this.trips.compareTo(hand.trips);
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(Flush hand) {
		return 1;
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(Straight hand) {
		return 1;
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(ThreeOfAKind hand) {
		return 1;
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(TwoPair hand) {
		return 1;
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(Pair hand) {
		return 1;
	}

	@Override
	public int compare(HighCard hand) {
		return 1;
	}

	@Override
	public int compareTo(RankedHand rh) {
		return -1 * rh.compare(this);
	}

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
jb_type('control',{description: "can be rendered to create a HTML control"});
jb_type('data',{description: "The most basic type of jbart. returns a data (usually without side effects)"});
jb_type('aggregator');
jb_type('boolean',{description: "Returns true/false"});
jb_type('action',{description: "Does some action"});
jb_type('dataResource');
jb_type('httpFeature');

jb_component('pipeline',{
	type: "data",
	params: {
		items: { type: "data[]", ignore: true }
	},
	impl: function(context,items) {
		var data = jb_toarray(context.data);
		var curr = (data.length) ? jb_toarray(context.data) : [null];
		jb_map(context.profile.items, function(profile,index) {
			if (profile.$filter)
				curr = jb_run(jb_ctx(context,	{ data: curr, profile: {$: 'passesFilter', filter: profile.$filter } }));
			else if (jb_profileType(profile) == 'aggregator')
				curr = jb_toarray( jb_run(jb_ctx(context,	{ data: curr, profile: profile })));
			else
				curr = jb_map(curr,function(item) {
					return jb_run(jb_ctx(context,{data: item, profile: profile}));
				});
		});
		return curr;
  }
});

jb_component('list',{
	type: "data",
	params: {
		items: { type: "data[]", jstype: 'array' }
	},
	impl: function(context,items) {
		return items;
	}
});

jb_component('data.if',{
	type: "data",
	params: {
		condition: { type: "boolean", jstype: 'boolean' },
		"then": { dynamic: true },
		"else": { dynamic: true }
	},
	impl: function(context,condition,thenArg,elseArg) {
		return condition ? thenArg() : elseArg();
	}
});

jb_component('jsonPath',{
	type: "data",
	params: {
		parent: { defaultValue: '{{.}}', jstype: 'object' },
		path: { jstype: 'string' }
	},
	impl: function(context,parent,path) {
		return parent && jb_run(jb_ctx(context,{ data: parent, profile: '{{' + path + '}}' }));
	}
});

jb_component('objectProperties',{
	type: "data",
	params: {
		object: { defaultValue: '{{.}}', jstype: 'object' }
	},
	impl: function(context,object) {
		return object && jb_evalExpressionPart('*',jb_ctx(context,{data:object}));
	}
});

jb_component('propertyName',{
	type: "data",
	impl: function(context) {
		return context.data && context.data.$jb_property;
	}
});

jb_component('writeValue',{
	type: 'action',
	params: {
		to: { jstype: 'object' },
		value: {}
	},
	impl: function(context,to,value) {
		jb_writeValue(to,value);
	}
});

jb_component('addCssClass',{
	type: 'action',
	params: {
		cssClass: { jstype: 'string' }
	},
	impl: function(context,cssClass) {
		if (context.vars.$control && context.vars.$control.$el)
			context.vars.$control.$el.addClass(cssClass);
	}
});

jb_component('setText',{
	type: 'action',
	params: {
		text: { jstype: 'string' },
		controlID: { jstype: 'string' }
	},
	impl: function(context,text,controlID) {
		var elem = jb_findControlElement(context.vars.$control.el,controlID);
		if (!elem) return;
		var input = $(elem).findIncludeSelf('input,textarea')[0];
		if (input) {
			$(input).val(text);
			input.jbUpdated && input.jbUpdated();
		}
	}
});

jb_component('urlParam',{
	type: 'data',
	params: {
		param: { jstype: 'string' }
	},
	impl: function(context,param) {
		return jb_urlParam(param);
	}
});

jb_component('urlHashParam',{
	type: 'data',
	params: {
		param: { jstype: 'string' }
	},
	impl: function(context,param) {
		if (!jbart.classes.urlHashParam) {
			jbart.classes.urlHashParam = function(param) { this.param = this.$jb_property = param; this.type = 'urlHashParam'; }
			jbart.classes.urlHashParam.prototype.$jb_val = function(val) { return jb_urlHashParam(this.param,typeof val == 'undefined' ? undefined : jb_tostring(val)); }
			jbart.classes.urlHashParam.prototype.$jb_equals = function(other) { return other && other.type == this.type && other.param == this.param; }
			}
		return new jbart.classes.urlHashParam(param);
	}
});

jb_component('autoTest',{
	params: {
		page: { type: "control", dynamic: true },
		run: { type: "action", dynamic: true },
		expectedResult: { type: "expectedResult", dynamic: true, jstype: 'boolean' }
	},
	impl: function(context,page,run,expectedResult) {
		var wrapper = document.createElement('div');
		var control = page();
		jb_renderControl(control,wrapper);
		run(jb_ctx(context,{vars: { $control: control }}));

		return expectedResult(jb_ctx(context,{ data: wrapper}));
	}
});

jb_component('htmlContainsText',{
	params: {
		text: { jstype: 'array' }
	},
	impl: function(context,text) {
		var htmlText = context.data.innerHTML || context.data;
		for(var i=0;i<text.length;i++)
		  if (htmlText.indexOf(text[i]) == -1) return false;

		return true;
	}
});

jb_component('dynamicFields',{
	type: "control",
	params: {
		list: { jstype: 'array' },
		genericField: { type: 'control', dynamic: true }
	},
	impl: function(context,list,genericField) {
		return jb_map(list,function(item){
			return genericField(jb_ctx(context,{ vars: { fieldItem: item } }))
		});
	}
});

jb_component('slice',{
	params: {
		start: { jstype: 'number', defaultValue: 0 },
		end: { jstype: 'number' }
	},
	type: 'aggregator',
	impl: function(context,begin,end) {
		if (!context.data || !context.data.slice) return null;
		return end ? context.data.slice(begin,end) : context.data.slice(begin);
	}
});

jb_component('httpCall',{
	type: "data,action",
	params: {
		url: {},
		features: { type: 'httpFeature[]', dynamic:true }
	},
	impl: function(context,url,features) {
    var options = { url: url };
    features( jb_ctx(context, { vars: { $httpOptions: options } }));
    return $.when($.ajax(options));
	}
});

jb_component('contains',{
	type: 'boolean',
	params: {
		text: { jstype: 'array' },
		allText: {}
	},
	impl: function(context,text,allText) {
		if (!allText) return true;
		allText = allText.innerHTML || jb_tostring(allText);
		for(var i=0;i<text.length;i++)
		  if (allText.indexOf(jb_tostring(text[i])) == -1) return false;

		return true;
	}
});

jb_component('passesFilter',{
	type: 'aggregator',
	params: {
		filter: { type: "boolean", jstype: 'boolean', dynamic: true }
	},
	impl: function(context,filter) {
		var result = [];
		for(var i=0;i<context.data.length;i++)
			if (filter(jb_ctx(context,{ data: context.data[i] })))
				result.push(context.data[i]);
		return result;
	}
});

jb_component('count',{
	type: 'aggregator',
	impl: function(context,filter) {
		return context.data.length;
	}
});

jb_component('toUpperCase',{
	impl: function(context,filter) {
		return jb_tostring(context.data).toUpperCase();
	}
});

jb_component('join',{
	params: {
		separator: { jstype: 'string' }
	},
	type: 'aggregator',
	impl: function(context,separator) {
		var result = '';
		for(var i=0;i<context.data.length;i++)
			result += (i>0 ? separator : '') + jb_tojstype(context.data[i],'string');

		return result;
	}
});

jb_component('unique',{
	params: {
		id: { jstype: 'string', dynamic: true, defaultValue: '{{.}}' }
	},
	type: 'aggregator',
	impl: function(context,id) {
		var out = [];
		var soFar = {};
		for(var i=0;i<context.data.length;i++) {
			var itemId = id( jb_ctx(context, {data: context.data[i] } ));
			if (soFar[itemId]) continue;
			soFar[itemId] = true;
			out.push(context.data[i]);
		}
		return out;
	}
});

jb_component('log',{
	params: {
		obj: { jstype: 'object', defaultValue: '{{.}}'}
	},
	impl: function(context,obj) {
		if (typeof console != 'undefined' && console.log) console.log(obj);
		return context.data;
	}
});

jb_component('object',{
	impl: function(context) {
		var result = {};
		for(var i in context.profile)
			if (i.charAt(0) != '$') {
				result[i] = jb_run(jb_ctx(context,{profile: context.profile[i] }));
				var native_type = context.profile['$jsype_'+i];
				if (native_type)
					result[i] = jb_tojstype(result[i],native_type);
		}
		return result;
	}
});

jb_component('stringify',{
	params: {
		space: { jstype: 'string', description: 'use space or tab to make pretty output' }
	},
	impl: function(context,space) {
		if (typeof context.data == 'object')
			return JSON.stringify(context.data,null,space);
	}
});

jb_component('jbart', {
	params: {
		script: { description: 'jbart script to run' }
	},
	impl: function(context,script) {
		return jb_run(jb_ctx(context,{profile: script.$jb_object }))
	}
});


Since its establishing in 2006, AvaTrade has built up itself as a main online Forex and CFD broker, because of its devotion to give a web based online trading platform that clients are searching for. There are more than 200,000 enrolled clients from more than 150 nations around the world, executing more than 2 million exchanges each month with more than 200 trading instruments to exchange. AvaTrade's focus is that traders all over the world trade with confidence using a regulated broker.
AvaTrade has been a award winning broker many years in a row, for keeping up the most noteworthy guidelines in client benefit, exchange executions, estimating straightforwardness precision and also for their propelled exchanging and investigation devices. AvaTrade has a headquarter in Dublin and branches all over the world. Regulated in Europe, Australia, Japan and the British Virgin Islands.
As an AvaTrade client you'll also benefit from the choice of more trading platforms and more ways to trade. They offer two manual trading platforms one that we see as beneficial as trading platform is MetaTrader 4 and Ava TadeAct, with full mobile trading support. You can also choose from a variety of automated trading platforms, including Mirror Trader and Zulu Trade.
Important to mention that AvaTrade is the only broker in europe that offers a bonus. The type of bonus is a first time deposit bonus of 100% up to $10.000.
With dedicated account managers and devoted customer service in 14 languages, AvaTrade customers can trade in peace. Their representatives are available 24/5, and are ready to provide help, combined with a wide deep knowledge of the different financial markets.
Their award-winning support team is available by phone, email and live chat, so their is a wide range of getting in touch for support.
They also provide support through ongoing education so that you can keep improving your trading skills, and learn new concepts with free videos, articles, e-books and daily market analysis. They also conduct a series of webinars in different languages, which apply to all level of traders – from beginner to expert.


Concern has been raised that psychology GCSE will not be available to Welsh medium education students next year.
Wales' main exam body, the WJEC, decided last year to stop offering the course in either English or Welsh due to a low uptake.
Regulating body Qualifications Wales invited other exam boards from England to provide the course but did not insist it was available in Welsh.
It said curriculum reforms may present an opportunity for further changes.
Teacher Chris Evans, who established a psychology department at Ysgol Morgan Llwyd in Wrexham, described it as a huge disappointment.


Mrs. Katerina Karali, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Business Development of ELPEDISON, referred to the Regulatory tools for the development of competition and consumer protection in the electricity market, to the Power & Gas Forum – energypress.gr, on 28th of March.
With regard to the NOME tender, it was stated that the purpose of the regulation was partially achieved as competition was created "where it did not exist". It has also been stressed that the development of healthy competition requires consistency in the choice of tools (one regulatory tool does not have to undermine the other's objectives) and continuity to allow rivalry to mature.


text:
Ohio State-Northwestern | Thayer Munford's delayed return, and other notes
Joey Kaufman The Columbus Dispatch
EVANSTON, Ill. — Ohio State left tackle Thayer Munford waited until the second quarter Friday night before stepping onto the field against Northwestern.
An undisclosed injury kept him from starting. He was replaced by redshirt freshman Nicholas Petit-Frere.
But it wasn't long before Munford made an impact.
Early in the second quarter, Munford stopped Wildcats defensive end Joe Gaziano, who was looking to break into the backfield. His block widened a hole that had been opened by center Josh Myers, and running back J.K. Dobbins took advantage. Dobbins burst through and ran for 68 yards before he was knocked out of bounds at the 5-yard line. Dobbins ran it in on the following play to put the Buckeyes ahead 21-3.
Munford was sidelined briefly during the Buckeyes' last game, a 34-10 win over Michigan State on Oct. 5 that preceded their off week. He was listed as a game-time decision on the team's status report Thursday.
It was the first start for Petit-Frere. When he arrived at Ohio State last year, he was the consensus No. 1 offensive tackle prospect, according to the major recruiting services.
The Buckeyes' depth on the offensive line was limited, making Munford's availability and production all the more important.
Joshua Alabi, who had started at right tackle in place of Branden Bowen in a win at Nebraska on Sept. 28, was not available and did not travel with the team to face the Wildcats.
Petit-Frere rotated back into the game in the second half, affording Munford some rest.
Haubeil's 55-yard
field goal ends half
The first half ended with Ohio State players mobbing kicker Blake Haubeil.
On the final play of the half, Haubeil made a 55-yard field goal, giving the Buckeyes a 31-3 lead and equaling the second-longest field goal in program history.
Mike Nugent also made a 55-yard field goal against Wisconsin in 2004.
Tom Skladany holds the school record with a 59-yarder against Illinois in 1975.
Haubeil's kick was set up by another important play on special teams. Punter Drue Chrisman downed the Wildcats on their 1-yard line minutes earlier.
With the ball near their goal line, the Wildcats were unable to do much and punted from the end zone, giving the Buckeyes possession at the Northwestern 36 with 31 seconds remaining.
McCall returns after
one-game absence
Demario McCall, the Buckeyes' primary punt returner and a reserve running back, was back on the field against Northwestern.
McCall did not play in the previous game against Michigan State when an issue arose during pregame warmups. He made a brief appearance in the first half against Northwestern when he returned a punt for minus-1 yard. Freshman receiver Garrett Wilson returned subsequent punts.
Dobbins overtook Beanie Wells for No. 5 on Ohio State's all-time rushing list, surpassing the 3,382 yards Wells gained during his three-year career. … Among other players who were listed as game-time decisions on the status report Thursday, sophomore linebacker Teradja Mitchell was available. Senior receiver C.J. Saunders, one of the team's seven captains, was in street clothes for the game. … Chicago Bears general manager Ryan Pace was among the NFL personnel at the game.
jkaufman@dispatch.com
@joeyrkaufman

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Custom ROM developers can now tweak and build their own custom ROMs or incorporate the source into their existing frameworks.
After promising to release the AOSP source code for ages, Sony has finally delivered. The Japanese electronics giant finally decided to deliver the goods today and fans of Sony who have always wanted to run a stock AOSP experience (Nexus like software) can now download the same and begin tweaking.
This is indeed good news for fans of Xperia smartphones who can now provide the same to their favourite ROM developer and get a custom ROM optimised for their device. What this means is that you will now see the Sony Xperia Z3, Xperia Z2 and Xperia Z1 series of devices being added by developers of custom ROMs giving more options and support for those looking for a custom ROM experience.
Sony has indeed been a bit open in way that is similar to OPPO. It is indeed a great way to offer and support the stock ROM experience that many users of such devices prefer. Making things official simply shows that Sony is indeed working hard to offer the Sony experience along with the stock Google Android experience to its customers. Oh! How we wish that Samsung felt the same way.


This is outlined in the comment policy, which I encourage everyone to review.
I realize this is a difficult to remember for a lot of commenters, but we're trying to maintain a disability-friendly space and several of the people in this space (including some members of the moderation team) have difficulties processing nested comments here. I thank everyone for being aware of this and commenting mindfully. Thank you!


text:
American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, FD-1, IAMAW, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs,
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs,
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, Plaintiff,
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants.
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND...................................................................................................7
A. An Historical Overview Of The Management Of Federal Public Employees .......7
B. The Statutory Provisions That Are Relevant To The Instant Dispute.................10
1. The Purpose, Structure, And Provisions Of The FSLRMS...........................11
2. The Federal Labor Relations Authority.......................................................14
3. Relevant Miscellaneous Provisions Of The United States Code...................16
C. The Challenged Executive Orders....................................................................17
1. Executive Order 13, 836 ("The Collective Bargaining Procedures Order") ... 17
2. Executive Order 13, 837 ("The Official Time Order")..................................19
3. Executive Order 13, 839 ("The Removal Procedures Order").......................23
D. Procedural History...........................................................................................25
III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS.................................................................27
IV. ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................31
A. This Court Has Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Because Congress Did Not Intend For This Matter To Be Resolved Through The FSLMRS Or CSRA Administrative Review Schemes......................................................................33
1. Both The FSLMRS And The CSRA Evince A Fairly Discernable Congressional Intent To Channel Certain Claims To The FLRA And The MSPB..........................................................................................35
2. The Unions' Claims Are Not Of The Type That Congress Intended To Funnel Through The FLRA or CSRA Statutory Review Schemes ................37
a. Meaningful Judicial Review Of The Unions' Claims Would Be Foreclosed If The District Courts Could Not Hear These Claims.....37
b. The Unions' Claims Are Wholly Collateral To The FSLMRS And The CSRA Administrative-Judicial Review Schemes...............48
c. Although Potentially Helpful, The Agencies' Expertise Is Not Essential To Resolving The Instant Claims.....................................56
B. The Unions' Claims Are Fit For Judicial Resolution.........................................59
C. The President Has The Statutory And Constitutional Authority To Issue Executive Orders That Pertain To Federal Labor-Management Relations, So Long As His Orders Do Not Conflict With The Will Of Congress................66
1. Before The Enactment Of The FSLMRS And CSRA, Presidents Had The Authority To Issue Executive Orders Regulating Federal Labor-Management Relations................................................................................66
2. The FSLMRS And CSRA Did Not Divest The President Of Any Authority In This Field...............................................................................71
3. The President's Executive Orders Concerning This Area Must Be Consistent With Congress's Pronouncements..............................................75
D. Many Of The Order Provisions The Unions Have Challenged In This Case Impermissibly Infringe Upon The Statutory Right To Bargain Collectively......76
1. Section 7103(a) And D.C. Circuit Caselaw Define The Contours Of The Statutory Right To Bargain Collectively...............................................78
a. The Duty To Bargain.....................................................................80
b. The Duty To Act In Good Faith.....................................................82
c. Takeaways Regarding Agency Conduct With Respect To Federal Labor Negotiations.....................................................83
2. Certain Provisions Of The Challenged Executive Orders Dramatically Curtail The Scope Of Bargaining Because Agencies And Unions Will No Longer Negotiate Over A Host Of Significant Issues.............................88
a. The Orders Remove These Matters From The Scope Of The Right To Bargain Despite The Fact That Congress Has Made Them Negotiable...........................................................................88
b. The Removed Topics Are Important To The Functioning Of Labor Organizations And The Fairness Of Collective Bargaining Negotiations................................................................92
3. Certain Provisions Of The Executive Orders Impede The Prospect Of Good Faith Negotiations......................................................................100
4. Defendants' Best 'No-Conflict' Counterarguments Are Meritless..............105
a. The Specious Section 7117 Suggestion........................................105
b. The Mistaken 'Mere Guidance' Characterization..........................111
E. The Remaining Challenged Provisions Of These Executive Orders Are Legitimate Exercises Of The President's Authority........................................113
V. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................118
The Constitution of the United States divides the powers of the Federal government into three spheres: "[t]o the legislative department has been committed the duty of making laws, to the executive the duty of executing them, and to the judiciary the duty of interpreting and applying them in cases properly brought before the courts." Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 488 (1923). Because "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . pose[s] an inherent threat to liberty[, ]" each branch of government must stay within its proper domain. Patchak v. Zinke, 138 S.Ct. 897, 905 (2018) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). When one of the three branches exceeds the scope of either its statutory or constitutional authority, it falls to the federal courts to reestablish the proper division of Federal power. See, e.g., Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218 (1995) (rebuking Congress's intrusion into the judicial sphere); Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 577 (1992) (preventing the Judiciary from intruding into the executive sphere); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 655 (1952) (halting the President's encroachment upon the legislative sphere). The instant case implicates these fundamental principles, for it relates to the power of the Judiciary to hear cases and controversies that pertain to federal labor-management relations; the power of the President to issue executive orders that regulate the conduct of federal employees in regard to collective bargaining; and the extent to which Congress has made policy choices about federal collective bargaining rights that supersede any presidential pronouncements or priorities.
On May 25, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued three executive orders relating to the administration of the federal civil service and the rights of federal employees to engage in collective bargaining. See Exec. Order No. 13, 836, 83 Fed. Reg. 25329 (May 25, 2018); Exec. Order No. 13, 837, 83 Fed. Reg. 25335 (May 25, 2018); Exec. Order No. 13, 839, 83 Fed. Reg. 25343 (May 25, 2018) (collectively, "the Orders"). Among other things, these Orders seek to regulate both the collective bargaining negotiations that federal agencies enter into with public-sector unions and the matters that these parties negotiate. The Orders place limits on the activities that federal employees may engage in when acting as labor representatives; guide agencies toward particular negotiating positions during the collective bargaining process; and address the approaches agencies shall follow when disciplining or evaluating employees working within the civil service.
Between May 30, 2018 and June 18, 2018, numerous federal employee unions ("the Unions" or "Plaintiffs") filed the instant consolidated cases against President Trump, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"), and the Director of OPM (collectively, "Defendants"), challenging the validity of the President's executive orders in various respects.[1] The Unions contend that the Orders conflict with the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act ("the FSLMRS"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101- 7135-and therefore constitute ultra vires and unconstitutional actions on the part of the President-and also that the Orders impinge upon the constitutional rights of federal employees. Several union plaintiffs initially insisted that the Orders amounted to such an egregious violation of presidential power, and worked such an immediate harm to the collective bargaining rights of federal employees, that a preliminary injunction was warranted. (See, e.g., Pl. AFGE's Mot. for a Prelim. Injunction, ECF No. 10.) However, the parties subsequently agreed to proceed straight to the merits of the Unions' challenges by having this Court resolve the instant dispute on cross-motions for summary judgment handled in an expedited fashion. (See Scheduling Order, ECF No. 16, at 1.)[2]
Before this Court at present are Plaintiffs' and Defendants' ripe cross-motions for summary judgment.[3] The Court held a lengthy hearing on these motions on July 25, 2018, and since then, it has worked diligently to sort out, and resolve, the myriad complicated and contentious issues that the parties' arguments raise. For example, each of the four motions for summary judgment that the Unions have filed assails various provisions in the Orders (a total of twenty provisions are targeted), and each motion makes different claims regarding the validity of the challenged provisions. By and large, this Court has treated the Unions' four motions as one. Generally speaking, the Unions collectively contend that (1) the President has no statutory or constitutional authority to issue executive orders pertaining to the field of federal labor relations; (2) the challenged provisions conflict with particular sections of the FSLMRS in a manner that abrogates the Unions' statutory right to bargain collectively; and (3) certain provisions of the Orders transgress Article II's Take Care Clause, and also, in one instance, the First Amendment's right to freedom of association.
For its part, the summary judgment motion that has been filed on behalf of Defendants raises two threshold issues: that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant dispute due to the channeling effect of the FSLMRS's administrative review scheme, and that some of the Unions' claims are insufficiently concrete to be prudentially ripe for judicial decision. On the merits, Defendants' summary judgment motion maintains that the President has ample statutory and constitutional authority to issue executive orders in the field of federal labor relations, and that the Orders do not, in fact, conflict with the FSLMRS's complicated statutory regime, either because the challenged provisions only constitute "guidance" to federal agencies or because a section of the FSLMRS specifically authorizes the President to reduce the scope of collective bargaining through the issuance of "government-wide rules or regulations." Defendants further assert that the Take Care Clause claim is nonjusticiable, and that the First Amendment freedom-of-association claim is baseless.
For the reasons explained at length below, this Court has decided that the Unions have the better of this argument. With respect to Defendants' threshold concerns, the Court concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant claims because, even though most disputes concerning federal labor-management relations must be channeled through the administrative review scheme that Congress has prescribed, this matter is different in kind than the disputes that Congress intended the FSLMRS's channeling provisions to cover. The Court further finds that the Unions' legal claims are generally fit for judicial resolution, and therefore, the prudential ripeness doctrine poses no bar to this Court's consideration of these challenges now.
As to the merits of the Unions' contentions, while past precedents and pertinent statutory language indicate that the President has the authority to issue executive orders that carry the force of law with respect to federal labor relations, it is undisputed that no such orders can operate to eviscerate the right to bargain collectively as envisioned in the FSLMRS. In this Court's view, the challenged provisions of the executive orders at issue have that cumulative effect. Stated succinctly, by enacting the FSLMRS, Congress undertook to guarantee federal employees the statutory right to engage in good-faith collective bargaining with agencies and executive branch officials, and the pronouncements that the FSLMRS makes are clearly based upon Congress's stated opinion that "the right of employees" to "bargain collectively . . . safeguards the public interest, contributes to the effective conduct of public business, and facilitates and encourages the amicable settlements of disputes" in regard to the "conditions of [federal] employment." 5 U.S.C. § 7101(a)(1). Viewed collectively, the challenged executive orders reflect a decidedly different policy choice; namely, the President's stated view that federal employees' right to engage in collective bargaining over the conditions of their employment is not apropos of an "effective and efficient Government[, ]" Exec. Order No. 13, 836 § 1(b), and should be rendered subordinate to the agencies' interest "in developing efficient, effective, and cost-reducing collective bargaining agreements[, ]" id. (preamble); see also Exec. Order No. 13, 837 (preamble); Exec. Order No. 13, 839 (preamble).
Certain provisions of the Orders plainly further the President's intention to restrict the scope and effectiveness of federal employees' right to collective bargaining vis-à-vis the agencies (e.g., those directives that stunt negotiations by narrowing the terms that the agency can entertain related to significant matters, such as access to government office space for union business and the amount of official time that can be allotted to negotiations and counseling), see Exec. Order No. 13, 836 § 5(e), 6; Exec. Order No. 13, 837 §§ 4(a), 4(b); Exec. Order No. 13, 839 §§ 4(a), 4(c), or clearly constrain agency negotiators' ability to conduct collective bargaining negotiations in good faith (e.g., those mandates that direct agency representatives to pursue specific positions "whenever possible, " such as limiting the annual aggregate official time awarded amount to one hour per employed union member per year), see Exec. Order No. 13, 836 §§ 5(a), 5(e); Exec. Order No. 13, 837 §§ 3(a); Exec. Order No. 13, 839 §§ 3. Therefore, this Court finds that these provisions conflict with congressional intent in a manner that cannot be sustained. (See Part IV.D, infra.) What remains of the Orders are those provisions that the Unions have not opted to challenge, and the few challenged provisions described in Part IV.E. See Exec. Order No. 13, 836 § 5(c); Exec. Order No. 13, 837 §§ 2(j), 4(c); Exec. Order No. 13, 839 §§ 2(b), 2(c), 4(b)(iii), 7.
This all means that, ultimately, both sides' motions for summary judgment must be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and this Court will enjoin the President's subordinates within the Executive Branch to disregard: sections 5(a), 5(e), and 6 of Executive Order 13, 836; sections 3(a), 4(a), and 4(b) of Executive Order 13, 837; and sections 3, 4(a), and 4(c) of Executive Order 13, 839. In this Court's view, these directives undermine federal employees' right to bargain collectively as protected by the FSLMRS, and as a result, the President must be deemed to have exceeded his authority in issuing them. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
A. An Historical Overview Of The Management Of Federal Public Employees
The history of federal public employment in the United States evidences two competing visions of the proper relationship between the President and the individuals who are employed to work for the federal government within the Executive Branch. See The Civil Service and the Statutory Law of Public Employment, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1619, 1619 (1984). The first of these visions emphasizes "broad deference to the executive in matters of public employment[, ]" and is based on the belief that such deference "is essential both to efficient public administration and [to] the realization of the popular will." Id. According to this view, the President must have free reign to discharge federal employees, and to regulate labor relations between the government and its employees, because such authority is necessary to run a capable and efficient Federal Government. See Id. at 1620. This belief also maintains that such power is necessary to ensure that the President can promote the will of the people by installing federal bureaucrats who actually seek to achieve the political platform that undergird the President's election. See id.
The second vision of public employment worries that unfettered "executive discretion" to hire and fire civil servants can damage "the integrity of public administration in general, " especially if an unchecked administration arbitrarily discharges career employees who hold contrary political views or who seek to blow the whistle on abusive employment practices within the Executive Branch. Id. This second vision of public employment also often asserts that a public employee has acquired a "property interest of sorts in his office[, ]" id., and expresses concerns not only about the impact that an abrupt dismissal might have on the administration of the federal government as a whole, but also on that employee's future employment prospects, see Id. at 1621. Based on such concerns, the second vision of the civil service system "fosters the view that the public executive ought to be extensively constrained in employment decisions" regarding apolitical civil service employees. Id. at 1619; see also, e.g., Harrison v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1505, 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (discussing how certain statutes constrain executive discretion to remove employees).
As relevant here, these two different visions of the role of the President in managing the civil service have proven ascendant at different moments in American history, including during periods that precede the statute at issue in this case. Indeed, because "[i]nitially, presidents had broad powers to fill the civil service with their [own] appointees[, ]" Jacob Marisam, The President's Agency Selection Powers, 65 Admin. L. Rev. 821, 863 (2013), throughout the nineteenth century, newly inaugurated presidents would regularly purge the ranks of the civil service, see id.; see also U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'r v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 557-58 (1973) (describing these practices). The exercise of presidential power to manage the federal workforce in this way waned significantly in the mid-twentieth century, as both President John F. Kennedy and President Richard M. Nixon expressly curtailed the purging practice by issuing executive orders that afforded significant procedural protections to civil servants. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 11, 491, 34 Fed. Reg. 17605 (October 29, 1969); Exec. Order No. 10, 988, 27 Fed. Reg. 551 (January 17, 1962). The Kennedy and Nixon orders also authorized the creation of labor unions representing federal government employees, and expressly granted federal employees "limited collective bargaining rights[, ]" thus "provid[ing] the initial authorization for federal experimentation with unionization." See Scott L. Novak, Collective Bargaining, 63 Geo. Wash.L.Rev. 693, 695-96 (1995); see also Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89, 91-92 (1983) ("BATF").
With the 1970s, the view that slothful federal employees enjoyed too much protection against discharge became increasingly popular, amidst mounting concern over government integrity in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It was against this backdrop that Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ("the CSRA"), Pub L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 (1978), which was codified (as amended) in scattered sections of Title 5 of the United States Code. This legislation was expressly billed as an effort to codify the previous assortment of executive orders and rules that regulated the relationships between the federal government and its civil service employees. See The Civil Service and the Statutory Law of Public Employment, 97 Harv. L. Rev. at 1631-33. And the CSRA "comprehensively overhauled the civil service system, " Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 773 (1985), by replacing the "outdated patchwork of statutes and rules built up" during the previous hundred years through executive orders and federal statutes, United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 444 (1988) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-969, p.3 (1978)), with "an elaborate new framework for evaluating adverse personnel actions against federal employees[, ]" id. at 443 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alternation omitted).
Significantly for present purposes, Congress crafted the CSRA with the express goal of "balanc[ing] the legitimate interests of the various categories of federal employees with the needs of sound and efficient administration." Id. at 445. To that end, "[t]he CSRA protects covered federal employees against a broad range of personnel practices, and it supplies a variety of causes of action and remedies to employees when their rights under the statute are violated." Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 560 F.3d 495, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2009). At the same time, the CSRA also streamlined the lengthy and laborious appeals processes that pre-dated the CSRA, which made it easier for employers to take successful disciplinary or performance-based actions against federal employees. See Fausto, 484 U.S. at 445.
The aforementioned FSLMRS, which addresses collective bargaining and labor unions exclusively, is Title VII of the CSRA, and is "the first statutory scheme governing labor relations between federal agencies and their employees." BATF, 464 U.S. at 91.
B. The Statutory Provisions That Are Relevant To The Instant Dispute
The arguments presented in the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in this case chiefly revolve around several provisions of the FSLMRS-5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-06, 7111-23, 7131-35-as well as a few miscellaneous provisions that appear either in the CSRA or elsewhere in the United States Code, see, e.g., Id. §§ 4302, 7301.
1. The Purpose, Structure, And Provisions Of The FSLRMS
The very first section of the FSLMRS lays out the purposes of the statute and the legislative findings that underlie it. Congress makes crystal clear that, in its considered judgment, labor unions and collective bargaining "safeguard[] the public interest"; "contribute[] to the effective conduct of public business"; and "facilitate and encourage the amicable settlement[] of disputes between employees and their employers involving conditions of employment[.]" 5 U.S.C. § 7101(a)(1). This statutory text also emphasizes the importance of adhering to "the highest standards of employee performance and the continued development and implementation of modern and progressive work practices to facilitate and improve employee performance and the efficient accomplishment of the operations of the Government." Id. § 7101(a)(2). Broadly speaking, the FSLMRS sets out to accomplish these goals by, among other things: affirming the rights of federal employees to unionize and to engage in collective bargaining, see Id. §§ 7102, 7103(a)(12); determining what matters must, can, or cannot be bargained over, see Id. §§ 7102, 7106, 7117, 7121, 7131; and developing a dispute-resolution mechanism for the various foreseeable issues that might arise during the collective bargaining process or as part of a final collective bargaining agreement, see Id. §§ 7104-05, 7116, 7118-19, 7121-22, 7132.
First and foremost, the FSLMRS firmly establishes the rights of federal employees to join labor unions for the purpose of petitioning government officials about labor matters, see Id. §§ 7102, 7102(1), and describes labor unions as entities that represent federal employees by "engag[ing] in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by employees under this chapter[, ]" id. § 7102(2). The terms "collective bargaining" and "conditions of employment" are terms of art within the FSLMRS, which means they have particular meanings that bear on this case. "Collective bargaining" is defined as "the performance of the mutual obligation of . . . an agency and the [union] . . . to meet at reasonable times and to consult and bargain in a good-faith effort to reach agreement with respect to the conditions of employment affecting such employees." Id. § 7103(a)(12). The "conditions of employment" that are subject to negotiation under the statute include "personnel policies, practices, and matters, whether established by rule, regulation, or otherwise, affecting working conditions[.]" Id. § 7103(a)(14). Furthermore, when bargaining over such matters, both agencies and union representatives must abide by their obligation to "meet and negotiate in good faith[, ]" id. § 7114(a)(4), and this means that the parties to the negotiation must generally "enter into discussions with an open mind and a sincere intention to reach an agreement[, ]" United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC, Local Union 14534 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 983 F.2d 240, 245 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting Sign and Pictorial Union Local 1175 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 419 F.2d 726, 731 (D.C. Cir. 1969)).
After establishing that the right to good-faith collective bargaining exists, the statute lays out what matters are subject to negotiation and the extent to which those matters must be discussed. In this regard, the FSLMRS establishes a three-tier system based upon the negotiability of matters in collective bargaining discussions. First, the FSLMRS establishes a default presumption that it is "mandatory" for agencies and unions to bargain over the "condition[s] of employment" in the workplace. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, Naval Aviation Depot, Cherry Point, N.C. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 952 F.2d 1434, 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1992); accord 5 U.S.C. §§ 7102(2), 7103(a)(12), (14). Moreover, while the phrase "conditions of employment" is broad, the FSLMRS further explicitly emphasizes at least two mandatory bargaining matters: the scope of grievance procedures for disputes between employees and management, see 5 U.S.C. § 7121(a), and the availability of "official time[, ]" id. § 7131(d)-i.e., the availability of paid time to union members to work on union-related matters, see BATF, 464 U.S. at 91. Second, the FSLMRS explicitly designates a narrow category of matters (section 7106(b)(1)) as 'permissive' matters for bargaining, in the sense that the parties may bargain over the matters contained within this section "at the election of the agency[.]" 5 U.S.C. § 7106(b)(1); see Id. (allowing, "at the election of the agency, " negotiation as to the "numbers, types, and grades of employees or positions assigned to" any project, or "the technology, methods, and means or performing work"); see also Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 414 F.3d 50, 53 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (acknowledging that these matters constitute "permissive" subjects of bargaining).
Third and finally, the FSLMRS prohibits negotiation over matters relating to management rights or those matters subject to Government-wide rules or regulations. Accordingly, none of the bargaining rights the FSLMRS confers may interfere with the rights of federal agencies "to determine the mission, budget, organization, number of employees, and internal security practices of the agency" or "to hire, assign, direct, layoff, and retain employees . . . or to suspend, remove, reduce in grade or pay, or take other disciplinary action against such employees" as allowed by law. 5 U.S.C. § 7106(a). The statute also frees federal agencies of any obligation to negotiate over those "matters which are the subject of any . . . Government-wide rule or regulation[.]" Id. § 7117(a)(1). This means that the right to collective bargaining does not extend to rules or regulations that are "generally applicable throughout the Federal Government[, ]" even if the rule does not "apply[] to . . . a fixed minimum percentage of the federal civilian workforce." Overseas Educ. Ass 'n, Inc. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 827 F.2d 814, 816-17 (D.C Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps., Local 2782 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 803 F.2d 737, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
As mentioned, the FSLMRS also recognizes that a number of disputes may arise in the context of collective bargaining negotiations or during the execution of a collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the statute prohibits labor unions or federal agencies from engaging in "unfair labor practices[, ]" such as interfering with the ability of employees or agencies to pursue their rights under the FSLMRS, or refusing to negotiate in good faith. 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1), (a)(5), 7116(b)(1), (b)(5). It also provides mechanisms for agencies and labor unions to resolve any impasse during negotiations, id. § 7119, and to determine whether a union's proposal is actually negotiable under the FSLMRS, id. § 7117(c).
2. The Federal Labor Relations Authority
The various relevant provisions of the FSLMRS discussed above cover a lot of substantive ground regarding the scope of federal labor-management relations. But there's more: to ensure that these statutory prescriptions are administered effectively, Congress also created a permanent agency that it named the Federal Labor Relations Authority ("FLRA"). See Id. § 7104(a). The FLRA has three members who are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. See Id. § 7104(a), (b). No. more than two of its three members may come from the same political party, see Id. § 7104(a), and the members may "be removed by the President only upon notice and hearing and only for" cause, id. § 7104(b). Thus, the FLRA is a bipartisan, independent agency. See Secs. Exch. Comm'n v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 568 F.3d 990, 997 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
Per the FSLMRS, the FLRA must "provide leadership in establishing policies and guidance relating to matters under" the statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(1), and the agency is specifically tasked with promulgating regulations pertaining to the FSLMRS, see Id. § 7134. The FLRA must also carry out a number of other prescribed duties, such as "resolv[ing] issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith under section 7117(c)[, ]" id. § 7105(2)(E); "conduct[ing] hearings and resolv[ing] complaints of unfair labor practices[, ]" id. § 7105(a)(2)(G); and providing, by and large, the final word relating to employee grievances under any grievance procedures established by a collective bargaining agreement, see Id. § 7122.
When the FLRA is called upon to hear a dispute, it may hold hearings and take testimony, require an agency or labor union "to cease and desist from violations" of the FSLMRS, or otherwise "take any remedial action it considers appropriate to carry out the policies of this chapter." Id. § 7105(g). However, the FLRA is not the final word on such matters; under the statute, "[a]ny person aggrieved by any final order of the [FLRA]" may, with two minor exceptions, "institute an action for judicial review of the Authority's order in" the federal court of appeals where that person resides, or in the D.C. Circuit. Id. § 7123(a). The statute further provides that when such an appeal is filed, the court of appeals "shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined therein[, ]" and may affirm, modify, or set aside the FLRA's order. Id. § 7123(c). Given the FLRA's expertise and the extensive role that Congress envisioned for this agency in administering the FSLMRS, the agency is entitled to Chevron deference when interpreting the ambiguous provisions within the FLRA. See Fort Stewart Schs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 495 U.S. 641, 645 (1990).
3. Relevant Miscellaneous Provisions Of The United States Code
Other statutory provisions that are either contained within the CSRA (but outside of the FSLMRS), or appear elsewhere in the United States Code, are relevant to this case. For example, in the CSRA, Congress created an agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") that adjudicates employee objections to certain adverse personnel actions. See 5 U.S.C. § 7701; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.3 (listing the various types of actions that the MSPB may hear). Among other things, the MSPB is specifically empowered to hear cases regarding the removal or reduction in grade of an employee "for unacceptable performance[, ]" 5 U.S.C. § 4303, and cases involving an "adverse action taken against employees . . . based on misconduct[, ]" Fausto, 484 U.S. at 446; see also 5 U.S.C. § 7513. The MSPB's decisions are typically reviewable in the Federal Circuit. 5 U.S.C. § 7703.
In the category of other sections of the United States Code that specifically address the President's ability to regulate the civil service, section 3301 of Title 5 authorizes the President to "prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service in the [E]xecutive [B]ranch as will best promote the efficiency of that service[, ]" id. § 3301(1), and the President is also expressly authorized to "ascertain the fitness of applicants as to age, health, character, knowledge, and ability for the employment sought[, ]" id. § 3301(2). Similarly, section 7301 of Title 5 states that "[t]he President may prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the [E]xecutive [B]ranch." Id. The public law that enacted the CSRA also expressly states: "no provision of [the CSRA] shall be construed to limit, curtail, abolish or terminate any function of, or authority available to, the President which the President had immediately before the effective date of this Act." Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-454, § 904(1), 92 Stat. 1111, 1224 (internal quotation marks omitted).
C. The Challenged Executive Orders
President Donald J. Trump issued the Orders at issue in this case on May 25, 2018, as part of a coordinated effort to overhaul labor-management relations within the federal government.[4] The Orders-dubbed "the Collective Bargaining Procedures Order"; "the Official Time Order"; and "the Removal Procedures Order, " respectively-cover a variety of issues, as described below.
1. Executive Order 13, 836 ("The Collective Bargaining Procedures Order")
Executive Order 13, 836, which is officially entitled "Developing Efficient, Effective, and Cost-Reducing Approaches to Federal Sector Collective Bargaining, " aims to instruct federal agencies on the procedures (e.g., the methods and timing) that the President would like to see instituted with respect to collective bargaining negotiations, as well as some of the subjects of negotiation that the President would like to see eliminated from the collective bargaining process. This executive order sets the tone at the outset, by admonishing federal agencies for "fall[ing] short" of implementing the prescriptions of the FSLMRS, which in the President's view, is "consistent with" that statute's pronouncement that the FSLMRS should be interpreted to promote an "effective and efficient Government." Id. § 1(a). The Order further provides specific examples of such alleged failures: the President laments the fact that "CBAs, and other agency agreements with collective bargaining representatives, often make it harder for agencies to reward high performers, hold low performers accountable, or flexibly respond to operational needs[, ]" id., and notes that this suboptimal result is often reached after years of taxpayer funded CBA renegotiations, see id., under circumstances in which "[a]gencies must also engage in prolonged negotiations before making even minor operational changes, like relocating office space[, ]" id.
As relevant to this litigation, Executive Order 13, 836 purports to fix these problems, primarily by changing the collective bargaining procedures that federal agencies follow. See Id. §§ 5(a), (c), (e), (6). First, section 5(a) states that "[t]o achieve the purposes of this order, agencies shall begin collective bargaining negotiations by making their best effort to negotiate ground rules that minimize delay" and "set reasonable time limits for good-faith negotiations[.]" Id. § 5(a). In this regard, the Order also maintains that "a negotiating period of 6 weeks or less to achieve ground rules, and a negotiating period of between 4 and 6 months for a term CBA under those ground rules, should ordinarily be considered reasonable." Id. Section 5(c), meanwhile, explains that when collective bargaining is delayed or impeded due to a union representative's "failure to comply with the duty to negotiate in good faith, " the agency shall "consider" filing an unfair labor practice complaint with the FLRA or "propose a new contract, memorandum, or other change in agency policy and implement that proposal if the collective bargaining representative does not offer counter-proposals in a timely manner." Id. § 5(c).
In a similar vein, section 5(e) purports to impact collective bargaining procedures by announcing that, when "developing proposed ground rules, and during any negotiations, agency negotiators shall request the exchange of written proposals, so as to facilitate resolution of negotiability issues and assess the likely effect of specific proposals on agency operations and management rights." Id. § 5(e). Moreover, "[t]o the extent that an agency's CBAs, ground rules, or other agreements contain requirements for a bargaining approach other than the exchange of written proposals addressing specific issues, " agencies are required, "at the soonest opportunity, [to] take steps to eliminate them." Id. Finally, section 6 homes in on the substance of the negotiations: it provides that "[t]he heads of agencies . . . may not negotiate over the substance of the subjects set forth in [section 7106(b)(1) of Title 5 of the United States Code] and shall instruct subordinate officials that they may not negotiate over those same subjects." Id. § 6.
The net effect of these challenged provisions is to set a presumptive timeframe for the completion of collective bargaining negotiations (roughly five to seven months), see Id. § 5(a); to remove certain matters from the bargaining table completely, see Id. § 6; to require agencies to seek an exchange of written proposals about specific issues during rounds of collective bargaining, and to call for the elimination of other approaches, see Id. § 5(e); and to ask agencies to consider taking certain steps (e.g., the potential implementation of the agency's own unilateral agreement) if union representatives delay or impede the negotiations in bad faith, see Id. § 5(c).
2. Executive Order 13, 837 ("The Official Time Order")
Executive Order 13, 837 is entitled "Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Efficiency in Taxpayer-Funded Union Time Use[.]" Exec. Order No. 13, 837. In this Order, as with all the Orders, there is no mention of Congress's statutory statement that "labor organizations and collective bargaining in the civil service are in the public interest." 5 U.S.C. § 7101(a). Rather, the Order suggests that the work of the agency itself is the only relevant interest that the public has as far as federal employees are concerned, and to make this crystal clear, the Order announces that "[t]o advance this policy, executive branch employees should spend their duty hours performing the work of the Federal Government and serving the public." Exec. Order No. 13, 837 § 1 (emphasis added). As justification for this policy statement, the Order points to Congress's direction that the FSLMRS should be interpreted "in a manner consistent with the requirements of an effective and efficient government[, ]" and asserts that "[a]n effective and efficient government keeps careful track of how it spends taxpayer's money and eliminates unnecessary, inefficient, or unreasonable expenditures[.]" Id. In so doing, the Order implies that the official duty time that some federal employees (representatives of federal labor unions) spend working on union business or representing federal employees in collective bargaining (which federal law allows) is an inefficient and ineffective taxpayer expense. See id.
To this end, Executive Order 13, 837 specifically redefines-and limits-the extent to which federal employees may engage in union business during working hours (a practice that the FSLMRS calls "official time" and that the Order dubs "taxpayer-funded union time"), and the Order also prohibits federal employees from using certain federal resources when working on non-agency business. The "[p]urpose" preamble announces four animating principles: (1) that "agencies should ensure that taxpayer-funded union time is used efficiently and authorized in amounts that are reasonable, necessary, and in the public interest"; (2) that "[f]ederal employees should spend the clear majority of their duty hours working for the public"; (3) that "[n]o agency should pay for Federal labor organizations' expenses, except where required by law"; and (4) that agencies should "eliminate unrestricted grants of taxpayer-funded union time" by "requir[ing] ...