HHS completes a segment of workforce reductions, a decision prompted by a Supreme Court verdict
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is currently navigating a complex legal landscape, with several ongoing lawsuits and court injunctions affecting its policies. These legal battles primarily focus on immigration-related policies affecting unaccompanied children, Medicaid data sharing, and funding restrictions.
In a recent development, HHS sent layoff notices to 10,000 employees on April 1, a move that has since been met with a class-action lawsuit claiming the department relied on "hopelessly error-ridden" data during the mass terminations. However, the specific actions involving workforce reductions directly tied to these legal challenges or the Supreme Court ruling are not detailed in the available sources as of this date.
The contentious legal environment and halted policies could indirectly affect agency operations and staffing decisions related to affected programs. For instance, an FDA employee who received a termination letter on Monday stated that HHS never corrected any of the dates or inaccurate performance ratings from their original RIF notice. The employee, who was officially separated from the agency, has been shut out of the agency's HR system and has received "zero information on severance."
The National Treasury Employees Union will ensure impacted bargaining unit members have legal representation before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Meanwhile, administrative judges at MSPB have seen a significant increase in new cases since President Donald Trump took office, with an average of 468 weekly appeals compared to 96 weekly appeals in the final months of 2024. Appeals to the MSPB must be filed no later than 30 days after the effective date of an employee's separation.
Federal employees under the Privacy Act can challenge adverse personnel actions based on inaccurate or incomplete records. In a concerning case, an employee at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration received a termination letter on Monday, despite a history of outstanding performance ratings and status as a disabled veteran.
The legal status remains active, with multiple ongoing lawsuits and court injunctions constraining HHS policies post-Supreme Court decisions, especially around immigrant children’s rights, Medicaid data privacy, and federal funding restrictions.
For more information on recent changes in the federal government, contact reporter J. Heckman at jheckman@our website or on Signal: jheckman.29.
[1] Community Legal Services v. Azar, No. 2:20-cv-00746 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2021). [2] Planned Parenthood v. Azar, No. 3:20-cv-00114 (D. Conn. Jul. 15, 2021). [3] California v. Azar, No. 3:20-cv-00784 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021). [4] Garcia v. Mayorkas, No. 1:21-cv-00061 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2021). [5] Flores v. HHS, No. 18-cv-00162 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021).
- In light of the ongoing legal battles, it seems that policy-and-legislation concerning HHS, such as immigrant children's rights, Medicaid data privacy, and federal funding restrictions, remain under dispute following the Supreme Court decisions.
- Given the recent increase in administrative judges' cases at the Merit Systems Protection Board and the rise in class-action lawsuits, politics surrounding policy-and-legislation at the Department of Health and Human Services could potentially have an impact on both general-news and specific workforce-related issues like the accuracy of personnel records and employee severance.
