The Trump administration faced a legal setback when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied its request to pause a ruling by a federal judge concerning the firing of probationary federal employees. The case centers around the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its acting director, Charles Ezell, who is being sued for terminating employees still in their probationary period.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision came in a 2-1 ruling, rejecting the Justice Department’s emergency motion to stay the lower court’s order. The judges emphasized that maintaining the status quo meant reinstating the employees rather than preventing their return. They pointed out that pausing the lower court’s ruling would, in fact, disrupt the status quo rather than preserve it.
The lawsuit against OPM and Ezell was brought by five labor unions and five nonprofit organizations, arguing that the mass terminations were unlawful. The lower court judge overseeing the case strongly criticized the administration, calling the dismissals unjust and stating that the justification given for them was misleading. The judge ordered that the affected employees be reinstated immediately.
In response, the Justice Department sought to delay the enforcement of this ruling, arguing that the claims of injury made by the plaintiffs were speculative and that the preliminary injunction placed an undue administrative burden on multiple federal agencies. Despite these arguments, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling requiring reinstatement.
A dissenting judge, appointed under the Trump administration, argued in favor of granting a temporary stay. She contended that the government had presented a compelling argument that reinstating the terminated employees would create substantial administrative challenges. She also noted that a temporary stay would allow time for the court to fully consider the case before any potentially unnecessary actions were taken.
The Justice Department included declarations from officials across several federal departments, expressing concerns that the court’s order represented an extraordinary intrusion into the authority of the executive branch. They argued that complying with the injunction would disrupt internal personnel operations and create uncertainty within the affected agencies.
Despite these arguments, the court maintained that the government had already completed the terminations and that reinstating the employees was necessary to correct an unlawful action. The judge overseeing the case has repeatedly requested that the Justice Department provide testimony from relevant officials to clarify the reasoning behind the terminations, but the administration has declined to comply.
The case continues to highlight tensions over executive authority and judicial oversight in federal employment matters. The court reaffirmed that OPM cannot instruct agencies to fire employees under the guise of mere guidance, reinforcing the limitations on executive influence over personnel decisions
