A federal judge has denied a request for a stay on an order declaring the firing of tens of thousands of probationary employees as unlawful, while also reinstating the workers. The judge expressed concern that continued efforts to block the order could prevent justice from being served.
“A stay would further injure plaintiffs because reinstatement becomes more difficult with every passing day,” the judge wrote in the ruling. He emphasized that many of the terminated employees were moving on with their lives, making it harder to remedy the situation. The government failed to present an alternative solution to avoid the irreparable harm caused by the mass terminations aside from reinstating the employees.
The judge had previously criticized the administration for the mass firings, calling it a misleading effort to remove workers under the guise of poor performance. He asserted that the reasoning behind the terminations was knowingly false and aimed at circumventing legal requirements regarding reductions in force.
Attorneys representing the government argued that the claims of injury were speculative and that the court’s order was an overreach into executive authority. They provided declarations from multiple federal agencies expressing concerns that reinstating the employees would create administrative burdens and interfere with agency functions.
The judge pointed out that only two of the agencies that submitted declarations had actually conducted performance reviews of their probationary employees before termination. He also noted the inconsistency in the administration’s argument, highlighting that while officials claimed they lacked time to produce testimony from key personnel, they were able to gather multiple agency declarations in a single day.
One of the key officials at the center of the case had previously submitted a declaration opposing the judge’s order but later withdrew it to avoid testifying in court. This move was criticized as an attempt to obstruct the legal process. Another senior official provided a declaration but failed to confirm personal knowledge of key communications related to the terminations, further weakening the government’s argument.
The administration’s legal team stated that if the request for a stay was denied, they would seek relief from the appellate court. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring many of their claims and could not seek injunctions on behalf of federal employees who were not directly involved in the case.
Officials have maintained that their role was limited to advising agencies to review their probationary employees and make employment determinations based on agency needs. However, the judge has continued to press for testimony to clarify the extent of official involvement in the mass terminations.
The ruling reaffirmed that the government could not direct agencies to fire employees under the guise of providing guidance. The judge concluded that while lawful guidance from oversight agencies is permissible, directives leading to mass firings must comply with legal requirements.
