In Baltimore, skepticism was expressed by U.S. District Judge James Bredar concerning the Trump administration’s mass terminations of probationary federal employees. During a hearing involving almost 20 states seeking a temporary restraining order to halt further firings and reinstate those dismissed, Bredar questioned whether the terminations were truly based on job performance, as purported, or if they were indicative of a broader agenda.
“This case isn’t about whether the government has the authority to fire employees, it’s about the manner in which they proceed with such actions,” stated Bredar. He emphasized the importance of adhering to legal protocols during staff reductions, especially if mass layoffs are involved.
The states involved in the lawsuit claim they were caught off guard as the Trump administration bypassed legal guidelines for large-scale layoffs, potentially impacting their financial stability. Since Trump took office, the lawsuit alleges over 24,000 probationary workers have been dismissed.
The Trump administration defends its actions, arguing that states shouldn’t interfere with federal employment matters. President Trump has cited reducing fraud, waste, and inefficiencies as motives behind streamlining the workforce.
Probationary employees, often new hires lacking full civil service protections, have been the primary targets for these layoffs. Several lawsuits have emerged challenging these actions. One judge previously allowed the firings to proceed, citing jurisdiction under employment law. Another judged a related directive as unlawful but did not halt the terminations.
This lawsuit, unique for being state-led, is under Judge Bredar’s consideration. Appointed by President Obama and located in Baltimore, Bredar remarked on the Trump administration’s transformative approach to the federal workforce and the ramifications of their decisions on thousands of employees.
Bredar suggested the terminations were less about individual performance issues and more about achieving a strategic objective, resembling mass reductions in force. According to the lawsuit, such actions require adherence to federal regulations, including considerations of an employee’s tenure, performance, and veteran status, along with 60-day advance notice for large-scale reductions.
At the hearing, Virginia Williamson, Maryland’s assistant attorney general, highlighted the “real and irreparable harm” to states due to inadequate notice. States, she argued, need timely information to aid workers in finding new employment and to manage unemployment benefits, thus mitigating broader economic impacts.
The states are concerned about both the rising financial burden of supporting unemployed workers and the negative effects on state income tax revenues.
Eric Hamilton, U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, countered that the layoffs did not equate to a reduction in force, asserting decisions were merely based on the unsuitability of probationary employees for federal service.
This coalition lawsuit involves several states including Arizona, California, Colorado, and others, along with the District of Columbia. Judge Bredar indicated a written decision would be delivered “promptly.”