What the Supreme Court’s Standing Ruling Means for Nonprofit Litigation

This article was updated on April 24, 2025.

On April 8, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees to pause a lower court’s order to rehire fired federal workers. This case stemmed from the Donald Trump administration’s layoffs in February of over 24,000 probationary federal employees across multiple departments, under the guise of cutting government waste. The layoffs were coordinated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) under instructions from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

While the ruling blocks one legal path, it also raises the stakes for finding smarter, more strategic ways forward.

This ruling didn’t just reject a federal judge’s decision—it redrew the map for how nonprofits can challenge Trump’s actions, making a major statement about who is allowed to bring such cases to court.

In March, a federal judge in San Francisco had ordered 16,000 laid-off workers to be reinstated, finding that the OPM didn’t have the authority to enact the terminations. A coalition of labor unions and nonprofit organizations brought the case forward, arguing that the mass firings were unlawful and that the resulting loss of services harmed the communities they serve.

But in its April decision, the Supreme Court justices found that the nonprofit organizations involved in the suit lacked standing, which means they weren’t sufficiently harmed to sue.

While the ruling blocks one legal path, it also raises the stakes for finding smarter, more strategic ways forward, according to attorneys and policy experts closely watching the case.

“Nonprofits have every right to use the courts to challenge unlawful government actions,” Jill Habig, civil rights attorney and founder and CEO of Public Rights Project (PRP), a nonprofit that supports litigation efforts that protect civil rights and fight injustice, told NPQ.

“In this particular case, we’re very disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling against the coalition of nonprofits,” added Habig. “[They] are standing up for public service employees, who were illegally fired, and the critical programs they run that help millions of Americans.”

This ruling is a turning point in how nonprofits will need to approach litigation and advocacy moving forward.

The Issue of Standing

The Supreme Court’s ruling hinges on the idea of standing—whether the plaintiff has the legal right to bring a case to court. To have standing, a plaintiff must show they have been directly harmed by the defendant’s actions in a way the court can address.

Chris Heerlein, CEO of REAP Financial, who advises nonprofits on how legal and policy changes affect their staffing and funding, explained in an interview with NPQ that the ruling sets a higher bar: “By ruling that advocacy organizations could not challenge the government’s layoffs, the [Supreme] Court made clear that nonprofits must show direct harm, not just policy disagreement.”

A legal expert in constitutional claims and nonprofit advocacy, David Gammill, founder of Gammill Law, explained to NPQ that the implications for system-level challenges are significant: “This ruling…will be an issue for nonprofits seeking to challenge policies by the government that impact people on a mass level….Unless they can demonstrate to the court that [an] operation of theirs suffered something measurable and tangible, the courtroom remains closed to them.”

But the ruling does not block all legal challenges. “It just shifts who can bring them,” William K. Holland, a trial attorney and managing partner at Holland Injury Law, LLC, who frequently works with clients navigating complex administrative and legal systems, told NPQ. “The message is clear: nonprofits can’t act as stand-ins for affected individuals unless they themselves are directly impacted…  [The decision] leaves the door open [but] makes the route narrower,” added Holland.

Gammill was not surprised by this ruling. He sees it as part of a trend, saying, “[It’s] not a shocker. Courts have been creeping in this direction with increasing regularity, particularly regarding system-level challenges from organizations.”

Why Nonprofits Bring Up These Cases

When a wronged party is unwilling or unable to sue, nonprofits have been an effective surrogate to get justice. They are legal proxies in cases where speaking out is not an option. In federal employment disputes involving probationary workers with limited rights, nonprofit groups can step in to challenge potentially unlawful policies.

“I’ve seen cases where individuals affected by government actions are either too intimidated or too stretched thin to take on a lawsuit,” Ramzy Ladah told NPQ. Ladah is a trial attorney and personal injury lawyer at Ladah Law Firm, where he fights for fair settlements and verdicts for clients whose insurance companies are trying to avoid paying compensation. “That’s exactly why nonprofits often step in. They have the structure, the legal teams, the time. They can look at the big picture and make sure that when rights are at risk, someone’s there to hold the government accountable.”

When asked about the Supreme Court’s ruling, Ladah added that “this decision…tells advocacy groups that unless they’re directly harmed, their voice won’t be heard in court.”

What Comes Next—Tangible Steps Forward

This case has made headlines as a win for the Trump administration, but it’s important to keep the ruling in perspective. While it muddies the waters of one legal tactic for nonprofits, there are still plenty of ways to push back against potentially unlawful federal actions. Nonprofit leaders might just need to get a little creative.

• Partner with directly impacted plaintiffs

Even without the ability to act as plaintiffs in lawsuits, nonprofits can still provide much-needed support.

“For any nonprofit lawyer watching this [case] closely, the takeaway is clear: relying solely on organizational standing isn’t going to cut it anymore,” said Ladah. “That means you’re going to have to link up with real people—the ones who actually got the pink slip… You need their stories, their documentation, their involvement from day one.”

Heerlein added, “To remain effective, nonprofits will need to shift toward partnership-based legal strategies. Collaborating with directly impacted federal employees or unions could help meet standing requirements in future lawsuits.”

• Support class action lawsuits

Coordinating or funding class action lawsuits is another way nonprofits can make a difference outside of direct litigation.

“We’ve seen [this] structure work in over a dozen cases we’ve monitored or advised on, where the nonprofit essentially steps back and funds the fight while still shaping the narrative,” Benson Varghese, board-certified criminal lawyer who has worked extensively on cases where procedural hurdles, not the merits, determined the outcome, told NPQ. He is a managing partner at Varghese Summersett.

John Beck, founding partner of Beck & Beck, agrees with this tactic, explaining in an interview with NPQ that “if the affected group can be linked procedurally—say through employment law violations—the nonprofit can serve as a logistical or financial backbone, even if they can’t be the named party. It’s not flashy, but it works.”

At the end of the day, nonprofits are not in this fight for flashy headlines—they are in it to make progress and hopefully get some justice for those impacted.

• Use administrative and regulatory pressure

Administrative and regulatory pressure—like filing rulemaking petitions, leveraging public records laws, and identifying compliance failures—might not be the splashiest option either, but it can help move the needle.

Varghese believes in the potential of administrative advocacy: “Filing rulemaking petitions under the Administrative Procedure Act or leveraging FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] for internal records can help challenge the basis of layoffs indirectly by exposing procedural errors or lack of impact analysis.”

“When so much is at stake, collective action is how we meet this moment together.”

Beck added that regulatory strategy can lead to surprising results: “When layoffs hit federal employees, there’s almost always a compliance issue somewhere in the process. If a nonprofit can partner with insiders and reframe the challenge through a regulatory or administrative lens—rather than constitutional standing—they often get further,” noting that he has advised three clients who achieved policy reversals without filing in federal court.

• Leverage amicus briefs and narrative power

Beyond filing lawsuits, nonprofits can also fight back by submitting amicus briefs—legal documents filed by individuals or organizations that are not directly involved in the case but have a strong interest in its outcome.

Ladah explained that amicus briefs help the court understand the broader implications of a case and allow nonprofits to contribute legal arguments without needing to be named plaintiffs, adding, “That kind of legal storytelling still matters. And in some cases, it can change the tone of a decision even if it doesn’t change the outcome.”

• Expand the advocacy toolkit

Change through litigation is not the only tool nonprofits have to help shape real, lasting change. Several legal experts recommend strategies like coalition-building, lobbying, and legislative reform.

“If the courts won’t hear it, Congress might,” said Ladah. He explained that the recent Supreme Court ruling can help push advocacy work toward policymaking. “[This wasn’t] a defeat—it’s a shift in tactics. [Nonprofits can] push for clearer rules about who can sue. Lobby for stronger protections for federal workers so this doesn’t become a pattern. There’s still a way forward—it just might look different than filing a complaint in federal court.”

Gammill agrees: “When courts restrict access, Congress is the alternate forum. Altering the standing rules by law or seeking increased accountability by an agency is the next natural step forward.”

He has counseled nonprofits forced to step away from lawsuits that ultimately drove regulatory reforms through FOIA requests and oversight hearings. “You can still make an impact through the law, just with more layers to it,” he said.

Habig encouraged nonprofits to use every tool at their disposal, adding, “When so much is at stake, collective action is how we meet this moment together.” This layered approach includes political advocacy and legal influence.

“Nonprofits should consider strengthening their internal advocacy structures and working with lobbyists who specialize in government affairs,” J C Prollamante, vice president of operations at Elite Litigators focusing on strategic litigation and advocacy in the nonprofit and public sectors told NPQ. “These experts could push for new legislation that would safeguard nonprofit interests in the face of government layoffs or other administrative decisions.”

Prollamante believes that in this new legal landscape, “nonprofits will need to be more strategic, combining legal, political, and public relations tactics to protect their missions and resources.”

One recent example shows what can still be achieved. In a separate case, the National Council of Nonprofits and other advocacy groups secured a preliminary injunction against a directive from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that sought to freeze all new federal spending. The judge barred OMB from enforcing the freeze or reinstating it under a different name and ordered the agency to notify all federal departments.

This win shows how nonprofits, when paired with strong legal teams and strategic positioning, can still succeed in holding the government accountable.

Nonprofits Will Keep Fighting

The April 8 decision underscores a shift: nonprofits may not always be the plaintiffs, but they can still shape litigation from behind the scenes.

Beck offers a reminder that the legal system is more complex than a simple right and wrong. “It’s about structure and access,” he said. “The nonprofits that adapt to that reality still have power. Just not through the same doors.”

Ladah also added a hopeful message: “The legal landscape will always shift. The rules will change. What doesn’t change is the need for someone to keep fighting. And if one path gets blocked, you find another one. That’s how real advocacy survives.”