After a series of legal and political challenges, the U.S. Supreme Court recently intervened to pause a federal court order that mandated the reinstatement of tens of thousands of probationary federal workers. These workers were terminated from six federal agencies under an initiative by the Trump Administration under the auspices of maximizing governmental efficiency and productivity. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, there is still ongoing litigation that not only continues to question the boundaries of executive power but also highlights critical issues of federal employee rights and judicial overreach.
1. The Mass Firing Of Government Employees
The legal battles began on February 13, 2025, when the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) issued a directive as part of President Trump’s broader effort to streamline federal operations. This directive led to the termination of tens of thousands of federal employees, a move justified by the Trump Administration as a measure to dramatically improve workforce efficiency. Probationary employees, typically those in the first year or two of their federal employment, were disproportionately affected.
The directive was promptly challenged by many non-profits and advocacy groups, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. These groups argued that OPM exceeded its statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act by directing terminations across multiple federal agencies without congressional approval. They further argued that the substantial loss of federal employees would adversely affect the services they rely on and harm their workers.
2. Preliminary Injunction In The Northern District Of California
The legal challenge gained significant momentum when Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction on March 13, 2025. Basing his decision only on the challengers’ arguments, Judge Alsup concluded that the OPM’s actions were “ultra vires,” meaning beyond its legal authority, as the power to hire and fire federal employees is vested in individual agencies, not the OPM. In his detailed ruling, Judge Alsup emphasized that the mass terminations were orchestrated without proper authorization and violated statutory requirements. The injunction mandated the immediate reinstatement of roughly 16,000 employees from the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
3. The Supreme Court’s Pause On Reinstating Federal Employees
On April 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, granting an emergency application filed by the OPM to stay Judge Alsup’s order. By a 7-2 vote, the Justices agreed the nine non-profit organizations challenging the terminations lacked standing—a legal right to sue—thereby halting the reinstatement process. Providing little explanation, the unsigned order stated, “[t]he District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the standing issue should not have been addressed at this stage.
4. A Maryland Court Order
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision paused the Northern District of California’s preliminary injunction, a separate ruling from a Maryland court remains in effect. There, Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland sided with a number of states that challenged the OPM’s directive and held that the mass terminations violated federal reduction-in-force statutes. Judge Bredar ordered the reinstatement of employees across 20 agencies. This order applies to a broader range of federal agencies in 19 states and the District of Colombia.
Because this order remains effective, it adds a layer of complexity to the legal proceedings as it is currently under appeal at the Fourth Circuit.
5. Where Things Stand Now
The U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention provided temporary relief to the Trump Administration, allowing it to pause the reinstatement of federal employees while the litigation unfolds. The case now heads back to the Ninth Circuit, which had previously rejected a similar request to pause the order on March 17. The Ninth Circuit’s forthcoming review of the preliminary injunction will be pivotal in determining the future of the affected employees. Meanwhile, the Maryland court order offers some protection until there is a ruling in the Fourth Circuit.
To read more articles like this one, subscribe to the ALERT Newsletter today!
About The Author
Luke Bickel is an attorney in Sheppard Mullin’s Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm’s San Diego (Del Mar) office. Mr. Bickel defends employers of all sizes in matters involving discrimination, retaliation, harassment, wrongful termination, and wage and hour. He has experience defending all aspects of employment-related claims, from single plaintiff to class and PAGA matters, in state and federal court. Beyond the realm of litigation, Luke advises clients on employment issues ranging from wage and hour compliance to federal OSHA and Cal/OSHA investigations. Luke’s experience also includes helping clients obtain workplace violence restraining orders and conducting workplace investigations.
Luke is a consistent contributor to Sheppard Mullin’s Labor & Employment Law Blog, Trade Secrets Law Blog, and the California Labor and Employment ALERT.
Mr. Bickel received his law degree from the USC Gould School of Law and his undergraduate degrees from Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, magna cum laude.