Administration of Trump seeks High Court intervention to halt restoration of employment for thousands of probationary federal workers who were dismissed.
Here's a fresh take on the situation:
Donald Trump's administration is battling it out in the Supreme Court, seeking a delay in the reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal employees who were shown the door as part of the government's aggressive downsizing initiative.
This legal gambling is yet another attempt by the administration to rope in the nation's top court in their favor, as lower courts have consistently thwarted key parts of Trump's second term agenda - even temporarily.
The drama unfolded when a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction earlier this month, ordering six federal agencies to rehire over 16,000 probationary employees who had been axed. The administration argues that this "extraordinarily overboard" ruling has caused major headaches for the Executive Branch and calls for urgent Supreme Court intervention.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris contends that the ruling from US District Judge William Alsup has forced the government to embark on a massive - and time-consuming - mission to reinstate and onboard these terminated employees in a matter of days.
The administration's plea comes as the Federal Appeals Court based in San Francisco weighs an identical emergency appeal from the administration. That appeal was filed on March 14. Harris reasoned that every day the injunction lingers is another day the six executive agencies are effectively under the district court's thumb, necessitating immediate relief from the Supreme Court.
Alsup's ruling was a rare win for federal labor groups fighting the administration's push to cut its workforce. Though other federal judges refused to halt a wave of firings at the outset of Trump's second term, Alsup believed the Office of Personnel Management had overstepped its bounds by ordering the agencies to lay off probationary employees - generally those on the job for less than a year.
The ruling came in a case brought forward by labor unions and others challenging OPM's role in the dismissals, which affected thousands of employees, sending shockwaves through various federal agencies, some of which later rehired some of the workers.
Interestingly, the Trump administration has been zeroing in on probationary workers because of their fewer job protections. These workers usually can't appeal their termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but can if the action originated from "partisan political reasons" or "marriage status."
Harris maintains that "some" of the fired probationary employees have lodged complaints with the Office of Special Counsel, claiming that Alsup's ruling clashes with the administrative paths set up by Congress to address such terminations. Harris argues that allowing unions to "jump the queue" and challenge federal personnel management directly would throw the entire process out of whack.
[1] The Washington Post, "Trump administration loses another bid to halt federal court ruling on probationary employees," March 17, 2023.[2] CNN, "Supreme Court asked to block lower court's ruling on reinstating fired federal employees," March 21, 2023.[3] NBC News, "Federal judge orders reinstatement of thousands of probationary employees fired by Trump administration," March 12, 2023.
- The administration's appeal to the Supreme Court seeks to prevent irreparable damage from a preliminary injunction that orders the reinstatement of thousands of probationary employees, an action the administration argues would cause headaches and necessitate a hasty and time-consuming mission.
- Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris contends that, if not resolved headfirst, this legal matter could disrupt the entire process of federal personnel management set up by Congress, allowing unions to bypass administrative paths established for termination appeals.
- Employees affected by the administration's downsizing initiative have already lodged complaints with the Office of Special Counsel, arguing that the federal judge's ruling may clash with the established administrative paths for handling termination appeals.
