Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on probationary federal employee firings

On April 8, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing the continuation of its efforts to fire several thousand probationary federal employees while lower courts examine the legality of the downsizing actions. This latest decision marks another victory for the White House at the conservative-majority court.

The high court’s ruling blocks a lower court order that had instructed the government to temporarily reinstate over 16,000 probationary employees who were targeted for dismissal, Caliber.Az reports, citing CNN.

In a brief, two-paragraph decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the unions involved in the litigation lacked standing to sue. Importantly, the decision did not address the merits of the legal arguments but still carries significant weight, affecting both the employees and federal agencies in the interim.

Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Jackson specifically questioning the need for the high court’s emergency intervention in the case. The implications of the ruling remain unclear, as a federal judge in Maryland recently issued a preliminary injunction reinstating employees not directly covered by the Supreme Court case.

CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown University Law professor Steve Vladeck described the ruling as relatively narrow, noting that the decision only addressed which parties could bring legal challenges to the firings. “It’s another win for Trump, but only in terms of who can sue and in which courts,” he explained. Vladeck also pointed out that other challenges to the firings have resulted in rulings unfavorable to the government, and those decisions remain in effect.

The ruling represents a victory for the Trump administration, which had asked the Supreme Court to step in and overturn the lower court’s decision. This came a day after the court allowed the administration to continue deportations under the contentious Alien Enemies Act, albeit with some added restrictions.

In its push to reduce the size of the federal workforce, the Trump administration has targeted probationary employees due to their limited job protections and the ease with which they can be terminated. While these employees typically cannot appeal their terminations to the Merit Systems Protection Board, they can challenge firings that are politically motivated or related to personal matters such as marriage status.

Labor unions and advocacy groups had challenged the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) involvement in the firings, which affected thousands of federal workers and caused disruption within several agencies. Some of these agencies later rehired affected employees.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup, appointed by President Bill Clinton, had previously ordered the immediate reinstatement of over 16,000 probationary employees. In his ruling, Alsup argued that federal agencies were acting on OPM’s directive to fire these workers and that the mass terminations caused significant harm to the agencies involved. He asserted that the court’s action was necessary to prevent further damage.

However, the Trump administration framed the issue as an example of judicial overreach, asserting that the district court's decision was an unwarranted intervention into the executive branch’s prerogative to manage its workforce.

“The district court’s extraordinarily overbroad remedy is now inflicting ongoing, irreparable harm on the Executive Branch that warrants this Court’s urgent intervention,” argued Sarah Harris, the administration's acting solicitor general at the time, before the Supreme Court.

By Tamilla Hasanova