A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled against Democratic attorneys general who sued the Trump administration over its mass firings of probationary employees, finding the states do not have standing to bring the legal challenge.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in a 2-1 decision vacated a lower court’s decision that indefinitely barred the Trump administration from terminating thousands of probationary employees in Washington, D.C., and the 19 states that sued.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote for the majority that to hold that standing exists for the states would “upset, indeed revolutionize, the balance inherent in dual sovereignty,” noting that the case concerns the federal government’s compliance with federal employment laws governing federal employees’ terminations.
“We acknowledge that the abrupt and indiscriminate dismissal of the probationary employees here exacted all-too-human costs upon those affected,” Wilkinson wrote. “But this real impact on the employees, who are not parties here, cannot govern our review.”
The appeals court directed the lower court to dismiss the case.
The 20 Democratic attorneys general filed suit in March after the administration fired thousands of employees in their probationary status, meaning those who were either hired or promoted within the past year or two and have fewer job protections than other federal workers.
The cuts came as part of the administration’s efforts to slim down the federal bureaucracy, spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
The states argued that the administration failed to follow “reduction in force” procedures mandated under federal regulations, such as providing 60 days’ notice to the workers affected by the firings.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar, an appointee of President Obama, first ordered officials to temporarily reinstate probationary employees fired at 18 agencies, no matter where they physically worked, but in April, added two agencies and limited those reinstatements to workers whose “duty station” falls within the plaintiff states and D.C.
“Only states have sued here, and only to vindicate their interests as states,” Bredar wrote in the latter ruling. “They are not proxies for the workers.”
In a dissenting opinion of Monday’s ruling, Judge DeAndrea Gist said she would have kept Bredar’s “well-reasoned” preliminary injunction intact.
“As explained above and in great detail by the district court, nowhere have the States asked to micromanage the Government,” wrote Gist, an appointee of former President Biden. “They ask merely for what they are due—notice under the statutes and regulations.”
