Judge Refuses to Stop Trump from Dismissing Inspectors General
The dismissed inspectors general were compelled to withdraw their request for a temporary restraining order.
On February 14, a federal judge dismissed an emergency request from eight inspectors general who were terminated by the Trump administration, aiming to restore their positions.
District Judge Ana Reyes of the District of Columbia required the inspectors general’s attorney to withdraw their request for a temporary restraining order during a virtual hearing, instead agreeing to an expedited timeline to consider their request for a preliminary injunction.
Reyes conveyed her frustration with the plaintiff’s attorney, Seth Waxman, for filing the suit on February 12, seeking emergency relief that would have provided backpay 21 days after the terminations, noting that her court staff was already inundated with numerous other requests for temporary restraining orders.
Demanding straightforward yes or no responses, the judge posed several questions to Waxman.
Waxman confirmed that the eight inspectors general were terminated on January 24 without a required 30-day notice to Congress or “substantial rationale” for their dismissal and that they were permitted to collect all their personal effects.
These former inspectors general were affiliated with the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, State, Education, Agriculture, Labor, and the Small Business Administration.
Related Stories
The judge noted to Waxman that there was nothing preventing Trump from submitting that 30-day termination notice to Congress immediately after a TRO was granted, this time providing written justification for their dismissal.
Commenting on the written complaint that claimed the plaintiffs suffered reputational damage, Reyes suggested that a 30-day return to work with a documented explanation for their unsuitability for the roles could potentially inflict greater reputational harm than what they have already experienced.
She stated that the public is only aware that they were dismissed without justification, indicating that there was no damage to their reputation since no cause, like incompetence, was stated, and such a termination could be perceived as advantageous.
Furthermore, she criticized Waxman for citing what he deemed a comparable case in his written complaint, highlighting that the government employee in that scenario acted independently of the White House, whereas his clients were employed by agencies that followed presidential directives.
Reyes even declined to consider the merits of the temporary restraining order during the brief virtual hearing, which lasted less than 13 minutes, ultimately compelling the plaintiffs to abandon it.
As Waxman shifted to an expedited briefing agenda, she admonished him for pressuring everyone to rush to a TRO when the issue could have been discussed in a brief phone call with the Department of Justice.
The defense counsel representing the department heads who employed those inspectors general remained silent, choosing not to participate in the deliberations.
Samantha Flom contributed to this report.
