How does the Antideficiency Act affect federal employee status during a shutdown?

Executive summary — shutdown status, pay, and rules made plain

The Antideficiency Act forces agencies to stop non‑authorized spending during a lapse in appropriations, which creates two distinct employee statuses during a shutdown: those who are “excepted” and must continue work (often without immediate pay) and those who are non‑excepted and must be furloughed. The law also interacts with later statutes and OMB guidance to shape whether furloughed workers receive retroactive pay, producing recent disputes about whether retroactive pay requires explicit appropriations language or follows the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act’s framework ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. Why the Antideficiency Act forces the lights out — and who it spares

The Antideficiency Act prohibits agencies from obligating or expending funds absent an appropriation, so when annual funding lapses agencies must suspend activities that lack legal exceptions and cannot lawfully enter new obligations ^[2]. That creates a binary operational effect: employees performing work that is “excepted” because it is necessary to protect life, safety, property, or to fulfill other statutory exceptions continue to work, while employees whose duties are not essential are placed on furlough. Agencies use legal tests and OMB guidance to determine exceptions, but the Act itself is the statutory engine that compels the shutdown, and agencies are constrained from accepting voluntary services or allowing non‑excepted employees to continue working in any official capacity ^{[2] [1] [4]}.

2. What “excepted” really means for day‑to‑day federal employees

“Excepted” status is not a job title but a legal determination tied to mission and statutory exceptions; it covers immediate national security, public safety, emergency response, and narrowly defined functions necessary to preserve government assets or enable later disbursement of benefits ^{[5] [1]}. Determinations vary across agencies and shutdowns because OMB and agencies apply the law to operational realities, deciding in advance which positions are mission‑critical. Employees placed in the excepted category often work through the lapse and may be told they will receive pay only if later appropriations or statutory provisions authorize retroactive compensation, which is the root of policy disputes ^{[5] [1]}.

3. Furloughs, volunteering bans, and penalties: the enforcement side

The Act expressly forbids accepting voluntary services and engaging in obligations in excess of appropriations, so furloughed employees cannot lawfully perform their duties or use government systems—even at no cost to the government—without risking administrative and criminal sanctions under the statute ^{[2] [4]}. That prohibition creates sharp boundaries: agencies enforce furloughs strictly to avoid Antideficiency Act violations, while managers must be careful not to authorize tasks that could be interpreted as incurring obligations. The penalties provision underscores why agencies are risk‑averse during lapses: the law attaches potential administrative or penal consequences to unauthorized work ^[2].

4. Retroactive pay: settled statute, contested interpretation

The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 established a presumption of retroactive pay for furloughed federal employees after a lapse, and multiple sources assert that employees affected by shutdowns have historically received back pay once Congress appropriated funds ^{[1] [6]}. Still, recent developments show the matter is contested: a 2025 OMB draft opinion argued that funding legislation must explicitly appropriate funds for retroactive pay, prompting pushback from federal unions, lawmakers, and legal analysts who maintain that Congress’s later appropriations routinely cure the Antideficiency Act constraint and that the Fair Treatment Act already governs retroactive compensation ^[3]. This dispute reveals a fault line between administrative reinterpretation and longstanding practice.

5. Conflicting guidance and politics: why shutdown rules get litigated

Guidance documents and policy explain the Act’s mechanics but do not eliminate political and legal conflict; non‑technical sources vary in depth and emphasis, and some summaries omit nuance about exceptions and retroactivity, contributing to confusion among employees and the public ^{[7] [8]}. Stakeholders have visible agendas: unions emphasize guaranteed retroactive pay and worker protections, agencies and OMB emphasize legal constraints and risk management, and some policymakers push stricter readings that require explicit appropriations language. These competing priorities produce oscillating guidance and litigation risk, even though the underlying statutory framework—no obligations without appropriations—remains constant ^{[9] [3]}.

6. Bottom line for federal employees and policymakers

For federal employees, the Antideficiency Act means two practicable outcomes during a shutdown: either you are excepted and continue to work—generally expecting later pay subject to appropriations decisions—or you are furloughed and barred from performing duties or volunteering, with retroactive pay likely but sometimes contested in practice. For policymakers, the Act’s constraints are clear: avoid entering obligations without appropriations, clarify exceptions in statute or appropriations language, and resolve retroactive‑pay ambiguity through explicit congressional appropriations or clearer administrative guidance to prevent disputes ^{[1] [2] [3]}.