Supreme court backs Trump administration in firing of 16,000 federal workers

The U.S Supreme Court’s ruling overturned a lower court judge’s decision that mandated the government reinstate over 16,000 probationary employees, allowing the Trump administration to keep them off the payroll while lower courts considered whether the downsizing efforts were lawful.

The court paused the U.S. Judge William Alsup of San Francisco’s March 13 injunction, which required six federal agencies to reinstate thousands of newly hired probationary employees while the legality of the dismissals was being challenged.

In addition, Trump presented the case as just another example of the federal judiciary stepping in to manage the decisions it claimed the executive branch ought to have established.

Trump administration secures partial victory

In a short, unsigned ruling, the court declared that the nine nonprofit organizations that received an injunction in response to their lawsuit lacked the legal standing to sue. In addition, based on the court’s argument, other plaintiffs’ claims in the case were not addressed in its order.

According to them, this did not form the basis of the district court’s preliminary injunction.

However, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, both liberal justices, openly disagreed with the ruling. Jackson gave a brief explanation, raising concerns and questioning the need for the high court’s immediate intervention.

Moreover, the full implications of the decision were unclear since a federal judge in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction earlier this month that reinstated some of the employees not covered in the Supreme Court case.

According to Georgetown University Law Center professor and Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck, the decision was relatively limited.

In support of this, Vladeck mentioned that the court only stated that the nonprofit groups granted an injunction in San Francisco were not the appropriate parties to challenge the mass firing in this case. He continued that Trump had won once more, but only in terms of who can and cannot sue and in which courts. 

Additionally, the Supreme Court analyst highlighted that the other challenges to the mass firings had already led to government losses in other cases, and those rulings were left in place.

Even so, the decision was a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the high court to intervene to wipe out the order from the lower court. This came after the court allowed the administration to carry out deportations under the controversial Alien Enemies Act but with some additional limitations.

Trump administration’s firing strategy targeted probationary employees with fewer job protections

As part of its effort to shrink the size of the federal government, Trump administration targeted probationary employees as part of its drive to reduce the size of the federal government because they have fewer job protections and are more easily fired. Normally, those workers could not appeal their firing to the Merit Systems Protection Board; however, they might be able to do so if the dismissal was due to “partisan political reasons” or “marriage status.”

Furthermore, concerning the situation, labor unions and other organizations challenged the Office of Personnel Management’s role in the firing, which impacted thousands of workers and sent shockwaves through different federal agencies, some of which went on to rehire some of the affected employees.

On the other hand, U.S. District Judge William Alsup mandated the administration that more than 16,000 probationary employees should be allowed to return to work immediately.

In his opinion, Alsup stated that each agency had, and still has, discretion over the hiring and firing of its own employees. In this case, OPM directed the agencies to terminate all probationary staff, and they carried out that directive. 

Sarah Harris, the administration’s acting solicitor general at the time, told the Supreme Court that the district court’s incredibly broad remedy was causing the Executive Branch actual, irreversible harm that needed this Court’s quick intervention.

Cryptopolitan Academy: Tired of market swings? Learn how DeFi can help you build steady passive income. Register Now