Judge Refuses to Block Trump’s Dismissal of Inspectors General

A federal judge on February 14 denied an emergency request made by eight inspectors general, who were terminated by the Trump administration, to have their positions reinstated.

Ana Reyes, the District Judge for the District of Columbia, instructed the attorneys representing the inspectors general to withdraw their request for a temporary restraining order during a virtual hearing, opting instead for an expedited schedule to consider their petition for a preliminary injunction.

Reyes expressed her irritation that the plaintiff’s attorney, Seth Waxman, filed the lawsuit on February 12 seeking emergency relief, which would have included backpay 21 days after their dismissals, highlighting that her court’s staff was already inundated with numerous temporary restraining order applications.

Requesting only yes or no answers, the judge posed several questions to Waxman.

He affirmed that the eight inspectors general were dismissed on January 24 without Congress being provided a 30-day notice or a “substantial rationale” for their termination, and confirmed that they had successfully retrieved all their personal possessions.

These former inspectors general had been affiliated with the Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, and Labor departments, as well as the Small Business Administration.

The judge noted to Waxman that nothing prevented Trump from sending that 30-day termination notice to Congress immediately after a temporary restraining order was granted, along with a written explanation for their dismissal.

Concerning the written complaint alleging that the plaintiffs experienced reputational damage, Reyes suggested that a 30-day return to their positions with a documented reason for their alleged unfitness could potentially inflict even greater reputational harm than what they had already suffered.

She remarked that the public only knows they were terminated without cause, adding that there was no reputational damage since no specific cause, such as incompetence, was provided, and that such a dismissal might actually be viewed as more favorable.

She also expressed discontent with Waxman referencing what he termed a similar case in his written complaint, clarifying that the government employee in that instance operated independently of the White House while his clients were employed by agencies that answered directly to the presidency.

Reyes refused to entertain the merits of the temporary restraining order during the virtual hearing, which lasted under 13 minutes, ultimately compelling the plaintiffs to retract it.

As Waxman pivoted to an expedited briefing schedule, she reprimanded him for causing a rush to a temporary restraining order when the situation might have been resolved through a brief discussion with the Department of Justice.

The defense attorney representing the heads of the various departments employing those inspectors general chose to remain silent and did not engage in the proceedings.

Samantha Flom contributed to this report.