On Thursday, February 27th 2025, in the Northern District of California, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, issued a temporary injunction which halted the firing of thousands of recently hired government employees.
In an attempt to reduce the Government’s payroll, Trump’s Administration has pushed Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to eliminate many of the Federal Employee jobs.
Probationary employees, typically in their first or second year of hire, have fewer protections than career civil servants, making them easier to fire and were one of the groups targeted by DOGE.
Judge Alsup’s order covers agencies whose firings impact the civic organizations that sued the Trump administration. Those agencies include the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Park Service, the Small Business Administration, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Defense, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. These organizations are represented by federal employee unions, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
The Unions argued that the mass firing that targeted probationary employees is illegal because it violated federal laws and procedures which included those that speak to “reductions in force” (RIFs). They claimed that the dismissals were arbitrary and lacking justification like poor performance or budgetary necessity which are required under regulation like 5 CFR Part 351.
The ruling is temporary and the final outcome depends on the ongoing litigation. The administration could still prevail if they refine their approach or if the injunction is lifted.
One possible way that the Trump administration could possibly navigate around the judge’s ruling is by Agency-Specific Termination Authority. Judge Alsup ruled that The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) cannot direct other agencies to terminate probationary employees. It did not, however, disallow the individual agency heads of their authority to terminate these probationary employees. Federal law normally allows agency heads discretion to fire probationary employees (those with less than one or two years of service) without the procedural protections given to long term career employees. The agency heads could be required by the administration to independently review and terminate employees deemed non-essential or underperforming, interpreting these moves as agency-driven and not OPM mandated. This process could comply with Alsup’s ruling and achieve similar results in reducing the workforce.
Mr. Perry, an econ/gov teacher at Pitman High School, answers whether he believes if Trump should be allowed to mass fire: “So my statement to this is so when you look at the constitution, my opinions are irrelevant. In Article 2 of the Constitution it says that executive power should, if we are vesting all of the power in the United States of America, then the President has the ability to hire and fire, but there are also unions in the federal government. The union has specific rules for hiring and firing, but it appears that the way the Trump administration is achieving this is by doing blanket firing, where they fire everyone in a group, and it looks like what they are trying to do is basically just saying, ‘Hey, everyone is gone in department A and department B.’ I don’t know the union contract enough, but it appears if you are downsizing a department then it is ok in the contract that the union has, whether it is good or not, it is a political discussion, and whether the president has that authority it is up to the court to decide; it is a sticky point. The judicial branch can determine whether something is legal or not but their ability to enforce their decision lies with the executive branch. The court can say if something is legal or not, but the question is whether the executive branch will follow the rulings of that court. It’s kind of like mom and dad, they say you cannot do this, but here’s the thing, once you get in your car, who determines what you do and what mom and dad says what to do…it’s up to you to police yourself. They are counting on you on being compliant to their ruling; now your parents believe you will be compliant to their ruling.
Overall, the situation of whether or not the Trump administration is allowed to mass fire is contradictory.