The Trump administration is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a federal judge’s ruling that mandated the reinstatement of thousands of terminated probationary federal employees. The Justice Department argues that the lower court has overstepped its authority and is interfering with the government’s personnel management process.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring multiple federal agencies to reinstate more than 16,000 probationary employees who had been terminated. The administration contends that the ruling disregards established legal frameworks for handling personnel disputes and undermines the authority of the executive branch.
The case stems from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its acting director’s involvement in the terminations, which labor unions and nonprofit organizations claim were unjustified. The judge criticized the mass firings, suggesting they were not based on performance as claimed. The Justice Department, however, maintains that these employees were lawfully dismissed and that the injunction disrupts standard government operations.
Following the judge’s order, the Justice Department sought emergency stays in both district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which were denied. The appeals court reasoned that halting the reinstatements would not preserve the status quo but instead create further disruption.
In its Supreme Court application, the administration argues that the lawsuit was brought by third parties rather than the employees themselves, sidestepping legal procedures established by Congress for employment disputes. The administration claims this creates a dangerous precedent where unrelated organizations can challenge federal employment decisions.
The Justice Department asserts that reinstating thousands of employees on short notice imposes significant administrative burdens on multiple agencies. The order, they argue, forces agencies to reinstate employees without the ability to reassess their suitability based on updated circumstances.
Officials from various federal agencies have expressed concerns that the order limits their ability to manage personnel effectively. The administration maintains that OPM’s role was limited to providing guidance and that it did not directly order the terminations.
The judge overseeing the case had requested testimony from the acting OPM director, a request the administration repeatedly declined. The ruling emphasized that OPM could not compel agencies to fire employees under the guise of guidance. The Supreme Court is now being asked to intervene and block the lower court’s order to prevent what the administration describes as an overreach of judicial authority.
