The Trump administration is seeking to halt an upcoming evidentiary hearing in the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) mass firings case, asking a federal judge to rescind an order requiring OPM Director Charles Ezell to testify. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that compelling Ezell to take the stand would create unnecessary constitutional controversy and place an undue burden on the government.
Ezell, appointed as acting director on the first day of the Trump administration, is accused of unlawfully terminating thousands of federal employees who were still in their probationary period. A federal judge in California had ordered him to appear in court to provide testimony. However, the DOJ’s Civil Division initially stated it would not produce Ezell, prompting plaintiffs consisting of labor unions and nonprofit organizations to push for a status conference. During that conference, the judge reaffirmed the order for Ezell to testify and required the DOJ to confirm its intention to comply.
On Monday, DOJ attorneys responded by filing a motion to vacate the hearing and block Ezell’s testimony. They argued that the interests of justice and judicial efficiency would be best served by avoiding a high-level executive official’s testimony in this context. The DOJ also requested that the court convert its temporary restraining order (TRO) into a preliminary injunction, which would allow the case to proceed in a more orderly manner.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of labor unions and nonprofit organizations, who allege that OPM overstepped its legal authority by orchestrating mass firings. According to the complaint, federal law grants individual agencies not OPM the power to hire and manage employees. The plaintiffs claim that OPM pressured agencies to terminate employees through standardized notices that falsely cited performance issues. They further argue that these actions amount to a fraudulent scheme that harms federal workers, their families, and the services they provide.
In response, the plaintiffs sought and obtained a temporary restraining order to prevent further terminations. While the DOJ has since updated its guidance to agencies, it maintains that the evidentiary hearing is no longer necessary. The department contends that its compliance with the TRO and its willingness to transition to a preliminary injunction should be sufficient to move forward with the case without compelling testimony from Ezell.
The administration has denied allegations of a coordinated termination effort. In late February, it asserted that OPM had merely advised agencies to review their probationary employees, not explicitly direct their dismissal. Ezell submitted a sworn declaration affirming that OPM did not issue mass termination orders or create a systematic plan for widespread firings.
As the case unfolds, the dispute over executive authority, agency autonomy, and due process rights for federal employees continues to shape the legal battle. Whether the court grants the DOJ’s request to block the hearing and Ezell’s testimony will likely influence the broader implications of the case.
