In a federal court session held in Baltimore, a judge in Maryland has decided to briefly extend a temporary order compelling the Trump administration to reinstate federal employees that were fired during a significant reduction of the federal workforce. The judge, James Bredar, expressed hesitation about issuing a broad national preliminary injunction. This case involves 19 states and the District of Columbia, which argue that they suffered due to this large-scale reduction that was not properly communicated as required by law.
Judge Bredar instructed attorneys from the states involved and the federal government to submit additional documents by Thursday morning to provide clarity on the consequences for the 19 requesting states and the 31 other states not part of the lawsuit. The judge remarked that national injunctions present various legal challenges and are the subject of widespread debate among courts and legal commentators.
Despite his reluctance, Judge Bredar indicated that he might still issue such an injunction if needed to alleviate specific harms experienced by the plaintiffs. One complexity in the case is that some federal employees might work in one of the suing states but reside in a non-party state, such as living in Virginia and working in Maryland or the District of Columbia.
The judge also plans to prolong a previous temporary restraining order that directed the federal government to rehire over 24,000 federal workers. Although the order was set to expire Thursday night, Judge Bredar noted that more work was necessary before finalizing his opinion, thus necessitating an extension.
The government has already initiated an appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though their request for a stay on the temporary restraining order was denied by the appeals court last week. Judge Allison Jones Rushing criticized the scope of district court decisions, highlighting a growing concern over courts issuing nationwide injunctions for issues beyond their immediate jurisdiction.
In parallel, the administration is appealing a similar case to the Supreme Court, involving an order to rehire probationary workers from California. The Justice Department maintains that federal judges lack the authority to overturn the executive branch’s decisions on staffing matters. Nevertheless, efforts are underway to reinstate previously laid-off workers due to these court orders.
Both the Maryland and California judges concluded that while the president has authority to fire probationary employees, the administration did not adhere to legal procedures during the layoffs. Judge Bredar’s ruling followed a lawsuit from 19 states arguing that they were caught off-guard by the layoffs, potentially impacting state finances severely.
The Trump administration argues the workforce reductions aim to eliminate inefficiencies within a bloated government system, dismissing the states’ claims to interfere with federal employment decisions. These layoffs primarily affected probationary employees, or those who are relatively recent hires and not fully protected by civil service regulations. Numerous legal challenges have since been filed over these mass terminations.
The states pursuing legal action against the Trump administration include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, along with the District of Columbia.