Judge Halts Trump Administration’s Sweeping Dismissal of Federal Employees

A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order in a significant lawsuit involving unions representing thousands of federal workers against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The unions allege that OPM recently instructed federal agencies to terminate all probationary employees, citing poor job performance as the reason.

The lawsuit states that several government agencies informed employees that OPM demanded the terminations. Email templates were reportedly utilized to communicate these decisions, framing them as performance-related dismissals.

Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup criticized OPM’s actions, declaring them likely illegal. He asserted that OPM lacks the authority to mandate hiring or firing decisions within federal agencies. Instead, he noted that OPM is only permitted to provide guidance, which agencies misinterpreted as an order.

Judge Alsup directed OPM to withdraw previous directives aimed at reducing probationary workers across various agencies, including the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. He is expected to issue a ruling soon to halt the mass layoffs planned for Friday at the Department of Defense.

Alsup emphasized that Congress has granted hiring and firing powers to individual agencies, highlighting that entities like the Department of Defense operate under their own legal authority. “The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority to hire and fire employees at another agency,” he stated during the proceedings at the San Francisco federal court.

In its defense, the government argued that it did not order the terminations but merely requested them. This stance aligns with the Trump administration’s broader agenda, which purportedly seeks to downsize what has been labeled a “bloated” federal workforce comprising around 200,000 employees.

The union plaintiffs were joined by five nonprofit organizations representing veterans and various sectors, seeking an injunction to prevent the firings and reinstate those already dismissed. Judge Alsup indicated that the agencies involved likely have a strong case, as many interpreted OPM’s communication as a directive rather than mere guidance.

During the hearing, Alsup remarked on the potentially widespread ramifications of such abrupt firings. He expressed skepticism about the simultaneous decision-making occurring across numerous agencies, suggesting external direction played a role in the firings.

He defended probationary employees as vital to government operations, pointing out that they often progress through the ranks, thus facilitating renewal within federal agencies. The judge expressed concern that arbitrary terminations would deter future applicants from seeking government jobs.

Alsup declared OPM’s orders invalid for now, pending further proceedings, and signaled a desire for an evidentiary hearing to explore the matter more thoroughly. Before concluding, he indicated that OPM’s acting director, Charles Ezell, would likely need to testify regarding his communications with agencies about the terminations.

Opposing counsel argued that federal employees should resolve such disputes through established processes, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board. Nonetheless, concerns about the immediate impacts of the terminations were raised, with claims that critical roles—such as those at VA hospitals—were at risk due to the firings.

Stacey Leyton, representing the non-union plaintiffs, highlighted the broader disruptions created by the OPM orders. She noted that the firings have adversely affected public safety and resources, including vital research and public services.

In closing, Judge Alsup urged the government to heed his ruling regarding OPM’s authority, emphasizing the importance of retaining probationary employees to maintain the integrity of government operations.