A 2nd judge orders thousands of fired federal employees temporarily reinstated

A federal judge in Maryland has ordered the Trump administration to temporarily reinstate thousands of federal employees terminated in recent weeks, after finding federal agencies acted unlawfully in carrying out the mass firings.

U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar, an Obama appointee, issued a 14-day stay in a case brought by 20 Democratic attorneys general representing the District of Columbia, Maryland, and 18 other states.

His ruling on Thursday came hours after another federal judge in San Francisco ordered the Trump administration to reinstate workers fired from six federal agencies. The Trump administration has already filed an appeal.

In a hearing in the states’ case on Wednesday, the attorneys general argued federal agencies falsely told probationary employees – typically those in their first year or two on the job – that they were being fired because of their performance, when in fact, agencies did not evaluate employees and instead were trying to shrink their headcount through a process called a reduction in force, or RIF.

The states charge that more than 20 agencies and their heads, who are named as defendants in the lawsuit, failed to follow proper procedures for carrying out mass layoffs, including providing states with 60 days’ notice.

Bredar found the states’ arguments compelling.

“Lacking the notice to which they were entitled, the States weren’t ready for the impact of so many unemployed people. They are still scrambling to catch up. They remain impaired in their capacities to meet their legal obligations to their citizens,” he wrote.

He ordered 18 federal agencies to reinstate probationary workers fired through what he called “illegal RIFs” by Monday at 1 p.m. Eastern daylight time, for a period of 14 days.

During that time, he said, the court would likely consider longer relief.

Bredar’s order covers probationary employees nationwide, not just those in states named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The sweeping list of agencies applies to some not covered by other rulings, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Homeland Security and others.

However, he said plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence of illegal firings at the Defense Department, the Office of Personnel Management and the National Archives and Records Administration, and excluded them from his order.

Under federal law, states are required to have rapid response teams to provide workers impacted by mass layoffs with support, including job transition services. The goal of these teams is to reduce fired employees’ reliance on public assistance.

“Economic dislocation of workers can easily create a cascade of instability throughout a regional economy,” the attorneys general wrote in their complaint.

In court, the states said that advance notice would have helped them quickly identify those in need of help before they were fired. Instead, they said, they’ve been forced to expend extra resources trying to track down those terminated, and meanwhile have seen unemployment claims soar.

The states also said the loss of tax revenue from people newly jobless was causing them harm.

In its defense, the government’s attorney argued that the states are not in fact experiencing injury, and that any effects of the layoffs on states would be downstream.

The government also argued that states lacked jurisdiction to bring their case to federal court, and that personnel matters involving federal employees must be channeled first through an administrative process within the federal government. It’s an argument that other courts have found compelling in cases brought by federal employee labor unions.

But in court on Wednesday, Bredar challenged that position, noting that unlike unions representing federal employees, the states have their own interests and their own harms when a large employer suddenly lays off thousands of employees.

There is a burden that falls on those state governments, he said.

Bredar noted it’s the government’s prerogative to shift thousands of people out of federal employment and do it quickly, but they can’t break the law while doing so.

“If the Government wishes to continue pursuing its RIF agenda, the Government must start from square one, acting in compliance with federal law,” he wrote in his ruling.

The lawsuit in Maryland is one of several legal challenges seeking relief for tens of thousands of probationary workers fired over the last month.

Already, the Merit Systems Protection Board has ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reinstate nearly 6,000 probationary employees it fired.

Earlier Thursday, the White House blasted the ruling issued from the bench by the federal judge in San Francisco, reinstating probationary employees at six agencies.

“A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “The President has the authority to exercise the power of the entire executive branch – singular district court judges cannot abuse the power of the entire judiciary to thwart the President’s agenda. If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for President themselves.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has begun to implement much deeper cuts across the federal workforce, including at the Department of Education, which announced Tuesday that it was terminating over 1,300 positions.

The Maryland attorney general’s office declined to comment on whether it had received advanced notice of any of the mass layoffs newly announced by the Trump administration.