Importance Score: 72 / 100 🔴
Court Rejects Trump Administration’s Bid to Reduce Federal Workforce
A plan initiated by the Trump administration to significantly reduce the federal workforce faced a setback as a US appeals court affirmed a judge’s directive to reinstate over 17,000 probationary employees. This ruling marks a blow to the proposed workforce reductions and has implications for numerous federal agencies.
Appeals Court Upholds Reinstatement of Federal Workers
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, ruled against the Trump administration. The court stated that the administration had not adequately demonstrated that U.S. District Judge William Alsup was wrong to determine that federal agencies likely lacked the authority to terminate employees based on guidance from the Office of Personnel Management.
‘The appellants have not shown a strong likelihood of success in this appeal, nor have they proven that complying with the preliminary injunction would cause irreparable harm,’ the court’s majority opinion stated, as reported by the New York Post.
Judges Barry Silverman and Ana de Alba, appointees of Presidents Clinton and Biden respectively, sided with the labor unions representing the affected federal workers.
The majority opinion acknowledged that the labor unions ‘presented evidence of tangible harm, which the district court carefully analyzed and deemed sufficient.’
vCard.red is a free platform for creating a mobile-friendly digital business cards. You can easily create a vCard and generate a QR code for it, allowing others to scan and save your contact details instantly.
The platform allows you to display contact information, social media links, services, and products all in one shareable link. Optional features include appointment scheduling, WhatsApp-based storefronts, media galleries, and custom design options.
Dissenting Opinion Argues Lack of Standing
Judge Bridget Bade, a Trump appointee, offered a dissenting opinion.
Judge Bade contended that the labor unions ‘did not sufficiently prove they have standing,’ suggesting ‘the government is likely to succeed on the merits because the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction.’
The dissenting judge further questioned whether the lower court’s order could effectively ‘remedy’ the alleged harm to the plaintiffs.
‘Reinstating terminated employees does not guarantee they will return to their previous roles or assignments, or that agencies will deliver the services desired by the plaintiff organizations,’ Judge Bade wrote.
‘Agencies might reassign these employees, alter their tasks, reprioritize services in a way that doesn’t benefit the plaintiffs, or even lawfully terminate them later,’ she elaborated.
‘Furthermore, it’s unclear if the district court has the power to dictate lawful personnel management decisions within these agencies.’
Impact on Federal Agencies
The ruling specifically affects the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and the Treasury Department.
The current injunction remains in effect while the Trump administration considers appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to suspend Judge Alsup’s order.
On Monday, administration lawyers argued in court filings that a federal judge cannot mandate the executive branch to rehire employees. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asserted this would impose ‘significant’ financial and logistical burdens.
‘Only this Court can stop this overreach of power,’ the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court asserted.
Administration Response and Next Steps
Despite the ongoing legal process, the Trump administration indicated that agencies are taking steps to reinstate the dismissed employees, initially placing them on paid administrative leave.
Background of Federal Workforce Reduction Plan
The mass terminations of probationary employees were reportedly the initial phase of a broader initiative by the Trump administration, with support from advisor Elon Musk, to substantially reduce the size of the federal workforce and decrease government expenditures.
While most agencies reported terminating a few hundred probationary employees, some agencies implemented far larger cuts.
For example, the Treasury Department reportedly dismissed over 7,600 individuals, the Department of Agriculture around 5,700, and both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Interior Department approximately 1,700 each, according to court documents.
Public Reaction and Protests
The large-scale firings triggered protests across the nation, as numerous federal employees suddenly faced unemployment.
Some affected workers shared personal accounts of reducing spending on necessities like groceries, social activities, and even pet healthcare.
Judge Alsup’s Initial Ruling
Amid growing criticism, Judge Alsup had initially ruled on March 13 that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), under which the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ operates, improperly instructed the six agencies to terminate the workers, exceeding its authority.
Judge Alsup described the widespread firings as a ‘pretense’ in a strong rebuke, days after declaring the government directive for the terminations ‘illegal.’
However, Judge Alsup also suggested the Trump administration could pursue workforce reductions through a formal Reduction in Force process.
Separate Ruling in Maryland
In a related development, a judge in Baltimore, Maryland, issued a separate order mandating the reinstatement of 25,000 probationary employees across 18 agencies, based on different legal grounds.
This Maryland case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by 19 Democrat-led states and Washington, D.C., arguing the mass firings would lead to increased unemployment claims and strain state-provided social services.
The employees subject to reinstatement under the Maryland ruling encompass those in agencies affected by Judge Alsup’s order, except for the Department of Defense, which stated it had dismissed around 360 probationary employees.
The Trump administration has also appealed the Maryland decision, but an appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, recently declined to halt the ruling while the case is ongoing.