Appeals Court Upholds Rehiring Order for Fired Federal Workers/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal appeals court in California rejected the Trump administration’s bid to halt a judge’s order mandating the rehiring of over 16,000 fired federal workers. The workers were terminated in February as part of a broader downsizing effort targeting probationary employees. The case, now headed to the Supreme Court, could reshape the administration’s approach to federal workforce reduction.
Mass Federal Rehiring Order: Quick Look
- Court Ruling: 9th Circuit denies emergency stay on rehiring order
- Judge’s Order: U.S. District Judge Alsup ruled mass firings were unlawful
- Affected Agencies: Six federal departments must reinstate workers
- Targeted Workers: Mostly probationary employees with limited protections
- Next Step: Case heads to Supreme Court as Trump appeals
- Separate Rulings: A Baltimore judge also found legal flaws in firings
- Estimated Impact: Over 24,000 workers potentially affected nationwide
- White House Stance: Administration argues judges overstepped authority
Appeals Court Upholds Rehiring Order for Fired Federal Workers
Deep Look
Legal Battles Intensify as Courts Challenge Mass Federal Firings
A California appeals court has delivered a significant setback to the Trump administration’s push to overhaul the federal bureaucracy, ruling late Wednesday that the government must comply with a lower court order requiring the reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal employees.
The 2-1 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s emergency motion to halt the ruling issued by U.S. District Judge William Alsup. The order compels six federal departments to immediately offer jobs back to employees fired en masse in February, citing procedural violations in the way the firings were handled.
Judge Alsup, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, found that the Trump administration attempted to bypass workforce reduction laws by targeting probationary workers—employees who have limited job protections due to their recent hiring or promotions. Many of those workers, according to court records, had recently received positive performance reviews, contradicting the administration’s justification that the dismissals were based on poor job performance.
“These firings were done in a manner that blatantly sidesteps federal rules and undermines the principles of fair employment,” Alsup wrote in his opinion. He mandated that employees from the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury be offered immediate reinstatement.
The ruling is one of several legal challenges the Trump administration has faced during its second term. More than 36 court decisions have either temporarily blocked or slowed key elements of its agenda. Within hours of Alsup’s ruling, a separate federal judge in Baltimore echoed similar concerns in a separate case brought by 23 states. Judge James Bredar found that the administration failed to adhere to laws governing large-scale federal layoffs, possibly affecting up to 24,000 probationary employees across various agencies.
The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It argues that federal judges lack the authority to “micromanage” executive branch employment practices and that the president maintains broad power to remove federal workers.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on that stance, framing the issue as a matter of executive authority. “This is an attempt to interfere with the president’s constitutional right to hire and fire federal employees,” she said.
Justice Department lawyers also contended that these actions don’t qualify as large-scale layoffs under current federal statutes and are instead justified based on performance concerns.
Labor unions and nonprofit organizations that filed the original suit maintain that the administration’s actions amount to an unlawful purge of government employees, many of whom were newer hires with diverse backgrounds and perspectives.
The case now heads to the Supreme Court, which will determine whether Alsup’s ruling will remain in place as litigation proceeds. A dissenting judge on the 9th Circuit panel suggested the administration presented a strong case against immediate reinstatement, hinting at further legal debate ahead.
Currently, the federal workforce includes an estimated 200,000 probationary employees, many of whom could face similar risks if the administration’s firings are upheld. The implications could reverberate across federal agencies for years, particularly in how future administrations approach personnel management and civil service reform.
Meanwhile, the broader legal and political context surrounding the case continues to heat up. Leavitt, along with two other Trump officials, is facing a lawsuit from The Associated Press over alleged retaliation related to editorial decisions. The White House defends its actions, citing an executive order requiring government agencies to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”
You must Register or Login to post a comment.