Mass firings of US government workers ruled illegal
Judge finds no single actor can order mass firings across the US government; process of redress and reversal could tie up Trump admin in court for years.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to rescind directives that led to mass firings, across numerous federal government agencies, finding the firings were probably illegal. Judge Alsup said in court that:
Congress has given the authority to hire and fire to the agencies themselves. The Department of Defense, for example, has statutory authority to hire and fire. The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency.
He added that OPM hiring and firing authority is limited to “their own employees.”
The ruling is far-reaching, and goes beyond the question of whether labor protections and collective bargaining terms preclude dismissal of well-performing probationary employees. It effectively finds that agencies must make their own decisions about hiring and firing, and that this cannot be directed by one agency or as one sweeping policy.
By finding there is no statutory authority for mass firings across agencies, the ruling calls into question the mass cancellation of 10,000 contracts at USAID, without cause and when doing so contravenes budgetary direction from Congress. There is also, at this writing, real concern about the broad definition of “probabionary employees” that the White House has adopted.
While much of the public messaging about probationary employees suggests they are recent hires, people without experience or training, or who have temporary contracts that allow summary dismissal, many of those being dismissed on this basis have long careers at their agencies, with demonstrated track records of high performance. The White House is treating as “probationary” and removable people who have been promoted to a new position.
Labor rights advocates, including unions representing federal civil servants, have argued that President Trump is violating contract terms and collective bargaining agreements, as well as federal law, by using this pretext to dismiss high-performing career staff who have been elevated to leadership. Some have observed that remarks by Trump and by Elon Musk suggest the maneuver is designed to disable agencies created and funded by Congress, as a way of ignoring Article I of the Constitution.
In some cases, people with high performance ratings have been falsely described in official notices of dismissal or in public comments from the White House as being low-performing or even as “robbing the taxpayer”. Such cases could lead to both defamation verdicts and reinstatement orders, even without Judge Alsup’s ruling.
We reiterate here—as we will no doubt need to do frequently going forward—that the First Amendment prohibits any law that would abridge the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The language is carefully worded to pull in all three branches of government: Congress shall make no such law; the Executive cannot act lawfully without authorization from Congress or the Constitution; the Judiciary must honor this explicitly protected right.
This is particularly relevant, as the Acting Solicitor General argued, and the Chief Justice appeared amenable to this argument, that even following through on already scheduled payments on a short court-ordered deadline would be unworkable, due to the bureaucratic complications created by the sudden mass cancellation of contracts. In other words, the Trump administration and the Chief Justice have implicitly recognized the need to avoid creating such complicating barriers to a timely remedy.
President Trump is continuing to act as if he has free rein to remove anyone from any position in government, even where legislation and court orders prevent him from doing so. The fact that all affected parties have an unalienable right to pursue redress could mean the administration will be embroiled in litigation for years, while dedicating resources to correcting unlawful actions and addressing crises that emerge as a result
Four of the areas where sudden understaffing looks to be creating costly and complicating ripple effects are:
Cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, in the midst of a deadly measles outbreak, a severe flu season, with novel pathogens emerging in China and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Reduction in force at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service, even as more states in the West and Plains regions face severe fire weather risk and other climate disruption impacts.
The ramifications of “DOGE” operatives “accidentally” (or simply, withouth legal authority or practical consultation with anyone) firing Ebola prevention and containment at USAID and nuclear weapons security specialist at the Dept. of Energy.
The sudden defunding and removal of USAID-backed humanitarian food aid in Sudan, where a brutal civil war verges on genocide, and where famine conditions are putting millions of lives at risk.
It is not only the workers being unlawfully dismissed who have potential cause of action. Affected parties include eople who are seeing their organizations unlawfully defunded, or who live in communities across the U.S. where vital services are being shut down, or who suffer physical harm, prolonged illness, or death, as a result of medical personnel being removed, and the jurisdictions where such people live or die.
FURTHER READING
 | A guest post by
|