Ruling Addresses Legal Issue in Firing of About 16,000 Probationary Employees
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked a preliminary injunction of a lower court order directing the Trump administration to reinstate about 16,000 probationary federal employees.
This latest Court order gave the Department of Justice a third victory in a few days after seeking emergency action from the Supreme Court to stop numerous district judges around the country from slowing policies the Trump administration is working to implement.
In this new Order, the Supreme Court wrote, “The March 13, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv1780, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit….”
The latest case was a preliminary injunction issued by Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. His order required reinstating probationary employees at several agencies. The judge, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, concluded the administration’s actions were a “sham” and “unlawful”.
On February 14, 2025, OPM issued guidance to agencies stating:
We have asked that you separate probationary employees that you have not identified as mission-critical no later than end of the day Monday, 2/17. We have attached a template letter. The separation date should be as soon as possible that is consistent with applicable agency policies (including those in CBAs).
The Office of Personnel Management issued a revision to its guidance to agencies on March 4, 2025, apparently in response to a decision by this judge. The revised OPM guidance stated:
Please note that, by this memorandum, OPM is not directing agencies to take any specific performance-based actions regarding probationary employees. Agencies have ultimate decision-making authority over, and responsibility for, such personnel actions.
In a press briefing on February 12, 2025, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized judges who issued rulings blocking parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda, describing them as “judicial activists” and suggesting that their actions amounted to a “constitutional crisis.”
During the briefing, Leavitt stated, “We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law.” She further asserted, “the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch.”
Supreme Court Order
The Supreme Court’s Order of April 8th was narrow:
The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Trump administration that the nonprofits involved in challenging the administration lacked legal standing to bring the case. The court did not, however, address other organizations involved in the lawsuit, including federal employee labor unions.
The District Judge’s injunction was not based on claims of any other organization, although those parties may face other questions regarding their legal standing to pursue the case.
The plaintiffs in this case were:
- The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
- The Main Street Alliance
- The Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks
- The Common Defense Civic Engagement
- The Western Watersheds Project
- AFGE Local 1216
- AFGE Local 2110
- VoteVets
- United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (UNAC/UHCP)
- American Public Health Association
- American Geophysical Union
- The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO
- Climate Resilient Communities
- Point Blue Conservation Science
Status of Firing Probationary Federal Employees
This Supreme Court order is just the latest in a series of court decisions impacting federal probationary employees. The Order issued April 8th does not resolve other legal issues surrounding these cases. The federal government has fired some probationary employees, rehired some, and left others in a paid leave status without returning to work.
This decision, finding that the non-profit organizations did not have legal standing to pursue the case, does not address the other issues that have yet to be resolved.
The Supreme Court has not addressed in any recent cases the authority of lower court judges to issue decisions implementing a temporary restraining order such as those involving probationary employees. The court has articulated a view that a president holds significant authority to make and implement policy decisions within the executive branch, rooted in Article II’s vesting of executive power, but that this authority is not unbounded.
This recent decision is one step in what will be a long process. A statement issued by AFGE highlights the continuing intensity of the issue as they said they will continue to fight the issue:
There is no doubt that thousands of public service employees were unlawfully fired in an effort to cripple federal agencies and their crucial programs that serve millions of Americans every day. Today’s order by the U.S. Supreme Court is deeply disappointing but is only a momentary pause in our efforts to enforce the trial court’s orders and hold the federal government accountable.
As the Court is now starting to review cases such as the one in the Order issued on April 8, 2025, more direct issues on this issue are likely to be forthcoming. These may ultimately determine the status of the potentially hundreds of thousands of probationary employees impacted by the decision to move forward to removing many of them.
