After an unsuccessful attempt at the circuit level, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a federal district court order directing federal agencies to reinstate terminated probationary employees.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on March 24 filed an application to stay an injunction issued by Judge William H. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Alsup is the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit filed against OPM by a group of government labor unions and related organizations. He told the government’s legal counsel at a March 13 hearing it was unlawful for OPM to direct the mass firings of federal employees serving in the first year of their positions. Per his bench ruling, several agencies — including the Treasury Department — needed to immediately reverse course and reinstate those let go mid-February.
These thousands of probationary employees, said Alsup, were not terminated because of their individual performances. According to the petitioner organizations, OPM acting Director Charles Ezell gave the go-ahead to send termination notices to each of the probationary employees for poor performance. Alsup lambasted the government’s legal counsel for the decision, saying it wrongfully denied employees benefits and the ability to appeal.
Since that hearing, agencies began the process of reinstating 16,000 employees, Department of Justice acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court Monday. But the employees were rehired only to be placed on administrative leave. Alsup told OPM this is “not allowed by the preliminary injunction, for it would not restore the services” it “intends to restore.”
OPM challenged the injunction in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied its emergency motion for an immediate administrative stay. Now seeking similar relief from the Supreme Court, the government reasserted its position that OPM did not directly fire anyone, and that part of its core function is to provide guidance federal agencies ultimately responsible for making their own decisions.
In its filing, the government argued the district court “badly exceeded the scope of its equitable authority by ordering reinstatement … for the perceived legal violation it identified.” But Alsup’s order “goes beyond the bounds” of the court’s “historical authority in equity” and that reinstatement is not “available” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
OPM claimed the preliminary injunction causes “extraordinary and irreparable harm to the Executive Branch” because reinstated employees must return “to full duty status, complete with work assignments” against the six agencies’ own wishes.
This deprives agencies of their “independent judgment” and is “a profound invasion of the Executive’s ability to manage its internal affairs,” it continued. Given the “extensive” onboarding process, the district court’s order has created “logistical” and “practical burdens” for agency staff involved in the reinstatements.
Questioning the “legality” of the order, the government said the fact that the case is still pending has only added to the “chaos.”
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
