|
Listen to article
|
A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that the Trump administration must undo the mass firings of thousands of government employees, a decision that could stall efforts to overhaul federal agencies. The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch, as legal challenges to the administration’s policies continue to mount.
The federal judge has stepped into a heated dispute over government layoffs, ruling that the recent firings of federal employees were improperly authorized. U.S. District Judge William Alsup pointed to the Office of Personnel Management and its acting director, Charles Ezell, saying Ezell overstepped his authority when he directed the terminations.
The Trump administration didn’t take the decision lying down. It quickly filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court, determined to challenge the ruling. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt weighed in earlier Thursday, framing the judge’s order as an attack on the president’s right to manage the government’s workforce. “This is an outrageous and unconstitutional overreach,” she said in a statement. “The administration is ready to push back hard.”
Judge Alsup’s order pulls no punches. He’s directed key agencies—Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury—to offer reinstatement to workers let go around February 13 and 14. He also gave them a week to report back with a list of probationary employees and details on how they’ve complied with his instructions for each individual.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by labor unions and advocacy groups, who’ve been raising red flags as the Republican administration presses forward with plans to slim down the federal workforce. For now, Alsup’s temporary restraining order has put those efforts on hold, but with an appeal already underway, the battle lines are drawn. It’s a classic tug-of-war between executive power and judicial oversight, with federal workers caught in the crossfire.
“These mass-firings of federal workers were not just an attack on government agencies and their ability to function, they were also a direct assault on public lands, wildlife, and the rule of law,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, one of the plaintiffs.
Alsup expressed frustration with what he called the government’s attempt to sidestep laws and regulations governing a reduction in its workforce — which it is allowed to do — by firing probationary workers who lack protections and cannot appeal.
Read also: Donald Trump Kick-Starts Moves To End Ukraine, Russian War
He was appalled that employees were told they were being fired for poor performance despite receiving glowing evaluations just months earlier.
“It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not have been done in our country.”
Government lawyers are standing firm, arguing that the widespread terminations of federal employees were perfectly legal. Their case hinges on the claim that individual agencies took the time to assess probationary workers and decide who was fit to stay on the job. It’s a defense rooted in procedure, suggesting the process was thorough and above board.
But U.S. District Judge William Alsup isn’t buying it. Appointed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, Alsup has made it clear he’s skeptical of the government’s explanation. He’s not one to just take their word for it, either. He scheduled an evidentiary hearing for Thursday to dig deeper, but the plot thickened when Charles Ezell, the acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, failed to show up.
Ezell didn’t testify in court, didn’t sit for a deposition, and—to top it off—the government pulled his written testimony from the table. That absence is raising eyebrows and leaving Alsup with more questions than answers as this legal standoff unfolds.
