RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — An order from a Fourth Circuit panel granted the federal government’s motion for a stay of a preliminary injunction requiring the reinstatement of thousands of federal employees in 19 states on Wednesday.
U.S. Circuit Court Judge Allison Rushing, a Donald Trump appointee, directed the order, with U.S. Circuit Court Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, concurring. U.S. Circuit Court Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin dissented.
The 19 states and D.C. claim the administration’s breakneck mass firings of at least 24,000 workers violated several legal procedures, including a provision requiring the government to give 60 days’ notice before any reduction in force. They sued 41 federal executive departments, their secretaries, other federal agencies, and their heads.
The order comes a day after the Supreme Court ruled in the administration’s favor in a similar case brought by labor unions and advocacy groups, granting an emergency pause to reinstate thousands of probationary federal employees.
Maryland-based Senior U.S. District Court Judge James Bredar granted the states’ injunction on April 1, ruling the lack of notice put an unreasonable strain on the jurisdictions.
“The government’s mass layoffs predictably led to an influx of newly jobless employees turning to the states for unemployment benefits and other social services,” the Barack Obama appointee said. “Because the states had not received any advance notice of the layoffs, as contemplated by the RIF statute and accompanying regulations, they were caught flat-footed and have had to scramble to respond.”
The preliminary injunction ordered the rehiring of all laid-off probationary employees and a halt to the firings in the plaintiff states.
“The need for a stay or injunction as applied to terminated employees with duty stations in plaintiff states is obvious,” the states wrote in their motion for injunctive relief. “Plaintiff states should have received notice of these separations within their borders, which would have triggered their rapid response efforts and reduced the need for unemployment assistance, among other things.”
The panel majority agreed with the government that the lower court lacked standing under the Civil Service Reform Act, and the states likely lacked standing as the terminated employees were the party suffering potential harm.
“This relief would be extraordinary under any circumstances. It is all the more extraordinary here, where the court acted at the behest of several states — but not even one affected employee — to redress the purported violation of a notice requirement,” the government wrote in its motion for a stay pending appeal.
The government successfully argued that the 1978 act precludes the court from analyzing the states’ claims because it provides an avenue for reviewing personnel action taken against federal employees. The states contend they aren’t filing the claims on the employees’ behalf. They claim that their harm arises from an independent statutory right to notice.
To petition for a stay of the preliminary injunction, the government had to show that they were irreparably injured sufficiently.
“The government is likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, and the government is unlikely to recover the funds disbursed to reinstated probationary employees,” the majority wrote.
Benjamin said any monetary injury is self-imposed.
The firings, which were helped along by White House adviser Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, focused on probationary employees who typically have worked for less than a year. Unlike federal civil servants, who can only be terminated for poor job performance or misconduct, probationary employees lack job protections.
The plaintiff states include Maryland, Minnesota, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. Four of the 19 states voted for Trump in the 2024 election.