A federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked 21 federal agencies from implementing an executive order that banned collective bargaining for nearly 1 million federal employees, citing “national security” reasons.

Judge James Donato of the US District Court in San Francisco granted the injunction sought by a coalition of unions whose members would be stripped of their collective bargaining rights under Trump's executive order.

However, Donato's decision contradicts a May ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which lifted another judge's block on Trump's order relating to members of another union.

Donato, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the unions that brought the case before him had “demonstrated a serious doubt as to whether their First Amendment rights had been violated.”

The judge declared that he was blocking the executive order pending a trial on its constitutionality.

“Plaintiffs have raised serious concerns under the First Amendment that warrant further litigation,” he wrote, adding that the unions have demonstrated they would face “a high likelihood of suffering irreparable harm from the loss of their right to collective bargaining and related rights.”

The Trump administration has the option of appealing Donato's ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

At issue is Trump's unprecedented executive order, issued in March, seeking to abolish union contracts at several agencies in the name of national security.

Donato also determined that Justice Department lawyers representing the Trump administration found it difficult to justify that some agencies, such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, should be viewed primarily as agencies with a national security mission.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the lead plaintiff in the case, argued that the Trump administration's selective application of the executive order—allowing agencies to recognize some unions and excluding others—constituted unconstitutional retaliation targeting unions that speak out against the administration's federal labor policies and challenge them in court.

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the administration is attempting to use the national security exemption to strip away the rights of workers whose primary duties are not related to security. national.

Donato stated in his ruling that the White House fact sheet constituted “strong evidence of the relationship between the exercise of First Amendment rights and governmental sanction.”

The White House fact sheet on the executive order denounced “hostile federal unions” and “certain federal unions” that “have declared war on President Trump's agenda” and are “fighting back” against Trump.

The fact sheet also stated, “President Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions that work with him,” but “will not tolerate” unions that oppose his agenda.

Donato stated that the fact sheet “expressed a clear hostile position toward federal unions and their First Amendment activities” and “condemned unions that criticized the President and expressed support only for those who toed the line.”

“Nothing "This implies that the Court will judge the president's decisions on national security matters," Donato wrote. "It will not. Rather, this constitutes compelling evidence of a serious and plausible First Amendment issue." With information from CNN and Federal News Network

Donato also determined that Justice Department lawyers representing the Trump administration found it difficult to justify that some agencies, such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, should be viewed primarily as agencies with a national security mission.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the lead plaintiff in the case, argued that the Trump administration's selective application of the executive order allowing agencies to recognize some unions and excluding others constituted unconstitutional retaliation targeting unions that speak out against the administration's federal labor policies and challenge them in court.

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the administration is attempting to use the national security exemption to eliminate the rights of workers whose primary duties are unrelated to national security.

Donato stated in his ruling that the White House fact sheet constituted “strong evidence of the relationship between the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment and a government sanction.”

The White House fact sheet on the executive order denounced “hostile federal unions” and “certain federal unions” that “have declared war on President Trump's agenda” and are “fighting back” against Trump.

The fact sheet also stated, “President Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions that work with him,” but “will not tolerate” unions that oppose his agenda.

Donato said the fact sheet “expressed a clear hostile stance toward federal unions and their First Amendment activities” and “condemned unions that criticized the President and expressed support only for those who toed the line.”

“None of this is to suggest that the Court will pass judgment on the President's national security decisions,” Donato wrote. "It won't. Rather, this constitutes compelling evidence of a serious and plausible First Amendment issue." With information from CNN and Federal News Network

Donato also determined that Justice Department lawyers representing the Trump administration found it difficult to justify that some agencies, such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, should be viewed primarily as agencies with a national security mission.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the lead plaintiff in the case, argued that the Trump administration's selective application of the executive order allowing agencies to recognize some unions and excluding others constituted unconstitutional retaliation targeting unions that speak out against the administration's federal labor policies and challenge them in court.

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the administration is attempting to use the national security exemption to eliminate the rights of workers whose primary duties are unrelated to national security.

Donato stated in his ruling that the White House fact sheet constituted “strong evidence of the relationship between the exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment and a government sanction.”

The White House fact sheet on the executive order denounced “hostile federal unions” and “certain federal unions” that “have declared war on President Trump's agenda” and are “fighting back” against Trump.

The fact sheet also stated, “President Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions that work with him,” but “will not tolerate” unions that oppose his agenda.

Donato said the fact sheet “expressed a clear hostile stance toward federal unions and their First Amendment activities” and “condemned unions that criticized the President and expressed support only for those who toed the line.”

“None of this is to suggest that the Court will pass judgment on the President's national security decisions,” Donato wrote. "It won't. Rather, this constitutes compelling evidence of a serious and plausible First Amendment issue." With information from CNN and Federal News Network argued that the Trump administration's selective enforcement of the executive order allowing agencies to recognize some unions and excluding others constituted unconstitutional retaliation targeting unions that speak out against the administration's federal labor policies and challenge them in court.

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the administration is attempting to use the national security exemption to strip away the rights of workers whose primary duties are unrelated to national security.

Donato stated in his ruling that the White House fact sheet constituted “strong evidence of the relationship between the exercise of First Amendment rights and governmental sanction.”

The White House fact sheet on the executive order denounced “hostile federal unions” and “certain federal unions” that “have declared war on President Trump's agenda” and are “fighting back” at Trump.

The fact sheet also stated: “The President Trump supports constructive collaborations with unions that work with him,” but “will not tolerate” unions that oppose his agenda.

Donato said the fact sheet “expressed a clear hostile stance toward federal unions and their First Amendment activities” and “condemned unions that criticized the president and expressed support only for those who toed the line.”

“None of this is to suggest that the Court will pass judgment on the president's national security decisions,” Donato wrote. "It will not. Rather, this constitutes compelling evidence of a serious and plausible First Amendment issue."

With information from CNN and Federal News Network