A federal judge showed compassion on Tuesday towards thousands of federal employees who were abruptly dismissed by the Trump administration earlier this year, yet expressed doubts over whether reinstating these workers would be an appropriate corrective measure, highlighting uncertainties surrounding the courtโs role. During a hearing at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson weighed in on a lawsuit filed by 19 states and the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs claim the states were adversely impacted by these mass terminations, as they were not given the legally mandated warnings necessary to prepare for the resulting unemployment crisis.
Judge Wilkinson observed, โIn part, it seems the voters might ultimately deliver a final verdict on this matter. While the judiciary has its limitations, the political repercussions of dismissing such a large number of employees are significant, leaving the final judgment potentially in the hands of the electorate. Although this might not be the complete solution, it could certainly be a component,โ he stated. A federal judge in Baltimore previously mandated the government to reinstate these employees in March, yet this decision was temporarily blocked by the federal appeals court. While the states pursue further judicial review, Wilkinson suggested during Tuesdayโs proceedings that the full reinstatement of these employees appears to be a disproportionately broad solution.
Caroline Van Zile, the solicitor general for the District of Columbia, contended that states suffered due to not receiving the 60 daysโ notice, along with crucial information typically required during federal workforce reductions. These provisions, she explained, were designed by Congress to assist states in adequately responding to such situations. โThe states, not the federal government, are left dealing with unemployment crises of this nature,โ Van Zile argued, โThis is precisely why we were granted statutory access to this information.โ
Conversely, attorney Sarah Welch, representing the appellants, asserted that relevant information was provided, emphasizing that the terminations did not constitute a formal reduction in force, which would trigger the 60-day notice and information obligations claimed by the states. Welch argued, โThere was no widespread elimination of positions and no evidence indicating that the agencies eliminated roles or altered operations due to these probationary employee terminations.โ
Probationary workers, typically new hires lacking full civil service protections, have often been the focus of layoffs across federal agencies. Despite showing empathy for these workers, Wilkinson remarked, โThe connection between the alleged harm and the remedy imposed appears disconnected.โ He further elaborated, โRemedies must align with the violations committed, whereas here, the corrective measures seem overly broad compared to the infractions, which poses significant challenges from an equity standpoint.โ
Van Zile countered by supporting U.S. District Judge James Bredarโs previous ruling, which criticized agencies for advocating against burdensome remedies after carrying out pervasive illegal activities. โThese agencies were responsible for terminating 24,000 employees at once,โ said Van Zile. โThe resulting harm fell upon the states, which lacked any ability to avert it.โ
Judge Bredar, along with another judge appointed by Democratic presidents, determined that the Trump administration breached federal laws during these dismissals across 20 agencies within the suing states. The Supreme Court previously overturned another decision from U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco, ruling that nonprofits lacked legal standing to challenge the firings of probationary employees.
In addressing the potential reinstatement of these employees, Wilkinson questioned whether doing so could excessively grant states influence over federal personnel matters. He noted the genuine impact on those affected, yet queried, โIs there a federal remedy that wouldnโt excessively undermine federal authority over its workforce composition?โ The states involved in the Baltimore case include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C.