Appeals Court Refuses to Suspend Ruling Requiring Reinstatement of Federal Employees

March 27, 2025 TruthUSA

The U.S. administration has already requested the Supreme Court to engage in the case concerning the reinstatement of over 17,000 recent workers.

A federal appeals court declined a request from the U.S. government on March 26 to delay a ruling that mandates the reinstatement of thousands of government employees.

According to a ruling by two of the three judges on a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, President Donald Trump’s administration has not shown a significant likelihood of success in this case. The judges noted that the government failed to demonstrate that it would incur irreparable harm if the reinstatement order were not put on hold.

“The appellants have not established a likelihood that the district court made a clear error in determining that the six agencies were instructed by the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to terminate probationary employees,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judges Ana de Alba and Barry Silverman. “Consequently, appellants have not indicated that the district court likely abused its discretion in mandating the reinstatement of the terminated employees.”

Earlier in March, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered six agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense, to reinstate roughly 17,600 newer employees they had dismissed based on guidance from the OPM.

The Trump administration subsequently filed an appeal. Officials argued that the OPM’s revision of a significant memo, emphasizing that agencies have ultimate authority over hiring and firing, should have concluded the matter.

“Any ambiguity was resolved, and no agency could shift responsibility to the OPM,” government attorneys stated in a motion to the appeals court. “… At least one agency rescinded terminations, but most did not. This outcome is not surprising—the President instructed agencies to optimize the federal workforce, and agencies may make employment decisions in light of that policy direction.”

The revision “should have concluded the matter, rather than serving as a basis for the district court to require agencies to reinstate probationary employees in bulk based on the untested theory that the agencies are no longer exercising independent personnel judgment,” they added in a different filing.

In a filing, plaintiffs contended that the government failed to provide the necessary evidence to support a stay pending appeal.

“Their retroactive claim that restoring the previous state would be administratively overwhelming does not equate to irreparable harm,” they argued.

Previously, the Ninth Circuit had rejected an urgent motion to stay Alsup’s ruling. Judges Alba and Silverman noted that delaying the order would “disrupt the status quo and turn it on its head.” Although the Trump administration has requested an intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices have not yet responded.

U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget S. Bade, the third judge on the Ninth Circuit panel, acknowledged that the government had effectively articulated that the order placed a significant burden on it.

Judge Bade also expressed a dissenting opinion on the new ruling, indicating that the government is likely to prevail in the case “because the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction.”

While Judge Alsup determined that the organizations suing OPM, such as Vote Vets Action Fund, possessed standing since they had to allocate resources due to OPM’s actions, Judge Bade countered that these groups had not proven that the reinstatement order is likely to alleviate the harms they claim to have faced.

“Reinstating the dismissed employees does not guarantee they will return to their previous positions and duties, nor that the agencies will render the services sought by the organizational plaintiffs. It is equally possible that the various agencies will reassign these employees to different roles, allocate them new tasks, or modify their mission and services in a way that does not enhance the services to the organizational plaintiffs, or even legally terminate the employees,” she wrote.

This ruling occurred just days after Alsup overturned a previous decision, declaring that unions involved in the case can also sue the Trump administration over the mass terminations. The Ninth Circuit did not address that development.

Source link