In a recent development, a California appeals court declined to suspend a judge’s mandate that calls for the Trump administration to reemploy thousands of federal employees who were dismissed in extensive firings.
A divided panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided late Wednesday to reject an urgent motion intended to delay the enforcement of U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s directive. This case, initiated by labor unions and nonprofit organizations, emerged amidst Republican President Donald Trump’s efforts to considerably reduce the federal workforce. Judge Alsup, among two judges, identified legal complications in the manner the terminations of probationary workers were executed.
In a 2-1 ruling, the judges on the panel turned down the appeal for an emergency stay, although one dissenting judge argued that the government’s case against reinstating the employees was compelling. Meanwhile, the administration has taken its appeal of Alsup’s decision to the Supreme Court, asserting that judicial intervention in federal employee policies and the reinstatement of over 16,000 workers is unwarranted. The Supreme Court is expected to respond by April 3.
Judge Alsup instructed six federal departments, namely Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior, and Treasury, to promptly offer reemployment to workers terminated in mid-February. Alsup, appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, indicated that these terminations were an effort by the administration to circumvent laws and regulations that manage workforce reductions, targeting probationary workers who lack extensive protection.
Judge Alsup expressed his dismay that these workers were allegedly fired for underperformance, despite having received commendable evaluations only months prior. Across the federal landscape, probationary employees have frequently been layoffs targets due to their newcomer status and limited civil service safeguards. The lawsuits contesting these dismissals represent only a portion of the numerous legal challenges faced by the administration. At least thirty-six rulings have temporarily hindered Trump’s agenda during his second term.
Just hours after Alsup’s decision, a judge in Baltimore highlighted additional legal issues with the firings. In litigation initiated by nearly twenty-four states impacted by the reductions, U.S. District Judge James Bredar concluded that the administration sidestepped procedural requirements for large-scale furloughs. This broader lawsuit encompasses various agencies, affecting an estimated 24,000 probationary workers.
The federal government insists that state governments have no jurisdiction over its internal employment dealings. Department of Justice attorneys contended that the dismissals were performance-based rather than large-scale layoffs that would invoke specific regulations.
White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, framed the matter as an encroachment on the president’s authority to manage federal workforce hirings and firings. Nationwide, around 200,000 probationary employees work across federal agencies, including entry-level hires and staff recently promoted.
Leavitt, alongside two other Trump administration officials, is named in a lawsuit filed by The Associated Press, citing First and Fifth Amendment violations. The AP alleges these officials are penalizing the agency for editorial decisions they disagree with. However, the White House contends that the AP is disregarding an executive order mandating the reference to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.