A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s directives leading to the firing of thousands of federal workers were “illegal,” yet stopped short of halting the layoffs. Judge William Alsup found that the Office of Personnel Management (O.P.M.) had exceeded its authority by issuing memos prompting the dismissal of around 200,000 probationary workers. This ruling, stemming from a lawsuit by labor unions, added uncertainty for affected employees. Although the judge believed O.P.M.’s actions violated the law, he acknowledged that agencies could still independently terminate workers based on their own justifications. An evidentiary hearing regarding O.P.M.’s memos is scheduled for next month.
On Thursday, a federal judge mandated that the Trump administration retract directives that led to the termination of thousands of federal employees, labeling those directives as “illegal” and recommending that the layoffs be halted.
The decision, issued by Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California, did not impose a complete stop on the firings and added to the uncertainty faced by federal employees, who have been unsettled by recent mass terminations.
Judge Alsup determined that the government’s human resources division had overstepped its bounds by issuing two memos detailing steps to dismiss approximately 200,000 probationary employees.
This division, known as the Office of Personnel Management, is meant to provide guidance to agencies rather than directives for action. However, agencies reacted to the O.P.M. memos with extensive firings, marking the first step in the radical restructuring of the federal bureaucracy that President Trump vowed to undertake alongside his top adviser, Elon Musk.
The ruling from Judge Alsup stemmed from a lawsuit brought by multiple labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the American Federation of Government Employees, contesting the dismissals of numerous probationary workers.
Judge Alsup mandated that the government promptly inform the agencies involved in the lawsuit—such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Science Foundation—about his finding that the directives were illegal. He also instructed that the Pentagon be advised, even though it was not a party to the lawsuit, due to concerns regarding reports of imminent firings in that department.
He noted that while he did not feel he had the authority to impose a larger restraining order to require agencies to suspend planned layoffs, he anticipated that they would comply with the intent of the law, given his determination that firings induced by O.P.M. were unlawful.
“I am going to trust the government to act appropriately and to go a little beyond what I have mandated and inform some of these agencies of my ruling,” he stated during his ruling from the bench.
The judge’s ruling specifically applied to the agencies and offices employing workers represented by the coalition of unions involved in the lawsuit.
Judge Alsup, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, mentioned that numerous agency heads had indicated both publicly and in internal communications that they interpreted the office’s memos as mandates. However, he stated that he could not prevent agencies from independently terminating employees.
Despite this, the union coalition behind the lawsuit expressed satisfaction with the ruling.
“These are dedicated federal employees who joined the government to effect positive change in their communities, only to be abruptly dismissed due to this administration’s disregard for federal workers and its goal to privatize their roles,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, in a statement. “The O.P.M.’s directive to agencies to carry out indiscriminate terminations of federal probationary employees is undoubtedly illegal.”
While he emphasized that he viewed O.P.M.’s recent actions as broadly illegal, he acknowledged that agencies retain the ability to make personnel adjustments independently, which might involve terminating probationary employees if justified.
“Congress has granted the authority to hire and fire to the agencies themselves,” he remarked.
“Agencies can disregard O.P.M. if they choose to — if it’s merely guidance,” he stated. “However, if it’s an order, or is perceived as one, agencies might believe compliance is necessary, even though I am advising them right now: They do not have to comply.”
Judge Alsup characterized probationary employees as the “lifeblood” of the federal workforce, arguing that large-scale dismissals were detrimental to agencies and depleted the expertise of young workers and recent graduates.
He also mentioned that he would schedule an evidentiary hearing next month where Charles Ezell, the acting director of O.P.M., would be called to testify under oath regarding the memos issued by his office.