Employment for thousands of federal employees remains in limbo as courts respond to layoffs initiated by the Trump Administration under the auspice of maximizing governmental efficiency and productivity. Recently, both the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit intervened in separate actions to pause federal court orders mandating the reinstatement of tens of thousands of probationary federal workers. At the same time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a different lawsuit denied an emergency motion seeking to stay a preliminary injunction preventing the termination of these same federal workers. This ongoing litigation not only continues to raise important questions about the Executive Branch’s authority to restructure the vast federal bureaucracy, but also calls into question the scope of judicial review.
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 the Trump Administration justified as necessary to dramatically improve workforce efficiency. Probationary employees, typically those in the first year or two of their federal employment, were disproportionately impacted by the OPM’s directive.
Various non-profits and advocacy groups challenged this directive, including the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. These groups argued the 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. First Preliminary Injunction In The Northern District Of California And Supreme Court Intervention
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.
On April 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, granting an emergency application filed by the OPM to stay Judge Alsup’s order. In 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.
3. Second Preliminary Injunction In The Northern District Of California
On May 9, 2025, in a separate lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought by a similar coalition of non-profits and advocacy groups, Judge Susan Illston issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of the executive order directing federal agencies to initiate large-scale layoffs and reorganizations. The court determined the coalition of unions, nonprofits, and cities challenging the order showed a strong likelihood of success, particularly because such extensive federal reorganization requires explicit congressional approval. Judge Illston explained Congress holds the authority to create, fund, and define federal agencies, and the President and OPM cannot unilaterally impose widespread layoffs in violation of separation of powers principles.
In response, the Trump Administration immediately moved for a stay by seeking emergency relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The administration argued the injunction encroached on the President’s Article II authority over Executive Branch personnel and the efforts to reorganize and streamline federal government operations. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the request for a stay on May 31, 2025. The panel concluded the government failed to show irreparable injury from the preliminary injunction and had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
The government subsequently filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 2, 2025, requesting intervention. The U.S. Supreme Court has requested the coalition of non-profits, advocacy groups, and cities respond to the emergency application by June 9, 2025, before it issues a ruling.
4. Ongoing Legal Battles In The Fourth Circuit
While battles continue in the Ninth Circuit, a separate battle has been ongoing in the Fourth Circuit. On March 13, 2025, Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland sided with a number of agencies and 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 federal agencies. This order applied to a broader range of agencies in 19 states and the District of Colombia.
However, on April 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the Trump Administration’s request to stay Judge Bredar’s order, ruling the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland likely lacked jurisdiction.
5. Where Things Stand Now
The employment status of thousands of federal workers remains uncertain after a series of legal and political challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention provided temporary relief to the Trump Administration, allowing it to avoid the reinstatement of federal employees while litigation unfolds. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed an injunction preventing the termination of these same federal employees pending further litigation. Meanwhile, litigation in the Fourth Circuit is ongoing regarding the scope of reinstatement ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As a result, federal employees whose jobs were affected by the mass terminations remain in a state of limbo.
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.
