Ninth Circuit rejects Trump bid to stay firing of federal workers
Michael Gennaro
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The Ninth Circuit rejected a request from the Trump administration Monday for an immediate stay on a federal judge's ruling last week that reinstated thousands of probationary federal employees who had been fired.
In a 12-page ruling, two of the three judges on the panel agreed that pausing last week’s order from Senior U.S. District Judge Wiliam Alsup would disrupt, rather than preserve, the status quo. The order was unsigned, but the panel included Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Barry Silverman, a Bill Clinton appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judges Ana de Alba, a Joe Biden appointee, and Bridget Bade, a Donald Trump appointee.
“Given that the district court found that the employees were wrongfully terminated and ordered an immediate return to the status quo ante, an administrative stay of the district court’s order would not preserve the status quo. It would do just the opposite — it would disrupt the status quo and turn it on its head,” the panel wrote.
Bade dissented, writing Alsup’s ruling should be stayed because it would have maintained the status quo since the employees were already terminated. She wrote that blocking the order would keep the status quo while the appellate court takes more time to determine if a stay is necessary.
“That order requires the six agencies to offer reinstatement to thousands of terminated employees, who may accept and require onboarding, credentialing, and other human resources or administrative action. The agencies must also submit a list of all probationary employees who were terminated on Feb. 13 and 14 along with ‘an explanation’ of what has been done to comply with the court’s order by Thursday, March 20,” Bade wrote.
In his order from the bench last week, Alsup blocked the Trump administration from firing thousands of federal employees, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of probationary workers who were fired from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Pentagon and many other government agencies at the behest of the Office of Personnel Management. The order was effective immediately.
At a hearing last Thursday, a visibly frustrated Alsup said that he believes that the government is obfuscating the truth because it has refused to make Charles Ezell, the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, available to testify about his role in ordering the firings of thousands of federal employees. Alsup had previously ruled that the Office of Personnel Management had no authority to tell any agency who it could hire and fire.
The plaintiffs in the case claim Ezell ordered the firings of thousands of federal probationary workers using a template letter that falsely stated that the terminations were for performance reasons. The plaintiffs claimed that probationary status also applied to federal workers who had just received promotions, and not just new hires.
Alsup said Congress has the authority to use the Reduction in Force Act to reduce the size of federal agencies, but that the Trump administration in this case is trying to go around Congress to cut employees at federal agencies, calling the attempt a “sham.”
Neither lawyers representing the plaintiffs nor the Justice Department responded to a request for comment by press time.
The plaintiffs now have until March 18 to respond to the government’s emergency motion, with a potential government reply due March 20.