A federal judge issued a sweeping order requiring the reinstatement of tens of thousands of recently terminated federal employees and blocking further mass firings. The ruling, which spans 56 pages, found that the administration had violated statutory constraints on workforce reductions by falsely classifying mass terminations as individualized performance-based dismissals.
The decision affects layoffs across 18 federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, and Homeland Security. The judge determined that these terminations were, in reality, reductions in force (RIFs), which require advance notice to both employees and affected states. Instead of following the legally mandated procedures, the administration dismissed workers without prior notification, claiming they were removed for performance or other individual reasons. The court found no evidence of individualized assessments, concluding that the administration’s claims were untrue.
The ruling followed a lawsuit brought by multiple states, which argued that the administration had ignored procedural requirements set by the Administrative Procedures Act. The failure to provide notice meant states were unprepared for the sudden influx of approximately 24,000 unemployed individuals into their economies. The court agreed that the administration had bypassed necessary legal steps, creating a significant impact on both federal employees and the states affected by the terminations.
The Department of Justice defended the administration’s actions, asserting that the states lacked standing to challenge the dismissals and that probationary employees could be terminated at will. However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasizing that mass terminations of this scale could not reasonably be attributed to individual performance issues. The judge pointed out that the rapid timeline in which the terminations took place made it impossible for the government to have properly evaluated each employee’s performance before dismissal.
The court’s order to reinstate employees was acknowledged as a considerable burden for the government, but the ruling emphasized that this burden was a direct result of the administration’s unlawful actions. The judge made clear that when the government engages in an illegal scheme targeting large portions of the federal workforce, correcting the situation will naturally require significant effort.
Earlier the same day, another federal judge in California issued a similar ruling, condemning the administration’s actions as unlawful. In a strongly worded opinion, he described the terminations as a blatant misrepresentation, asserting that the justification for the firings was knowingly false. The court mandated the immediate rehiring of the affected employees, reinforcing the conclusion that the administration had disregarded legal requirements in its approach to workforce reductions.
These rulings mark a major setback for efforts to rapidly reduce the size of the federal workforce through mass firings. The courts’ findings suggest that the administration’s actions were not only procedurally improper but also intentionally deceptive in their execution. As legal challenges continue, these decisions serve as a warning that attempts to circumvent established employment protections will face significant judicial scrutiny.
