Dem AGs appeal lack of nationwide injunction for probationary feds

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia are appealing a U.S. District judge decision limiting temporary reinstatement of probationary staff at the Department of Energy and many other federal agencies to just states that sued the Donald Trump Administration over mass firings.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of DOE, the Department of Transportation and other federal employers, are also appealing whether the federal judge in Baltimore should have issued any injunction at all.

The federal government filed a motion Thursday seeking to stay any preliminary injunction, pending appeal.

U.S. District Judge James Bredar ruled Tuesday that while the government can terminate large numbers of probationary employees, “when it does so, it must follow certain laws and regulations.” The judge said the Office of Personnel Management’s mass firings violate laws and regulations and harms the plaintiff states.

A copy of the judge’s preliminary injunction is available here.

The court’s injunction “is not national in scope because it is possible to substantially stop the harms inflicted on the states that did sue without extending judicial authority to those that didn’t,” the judge said in his accompanying 80-page decision.

Notice of the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for Maryland by the plaintiffs. Most if not all of the attorneys general suing over the mass reductions in force are Democrats.

“When the Trump Administration fired tens of thousands of federal probationary employees, they claimed it was due to poor work performance. We know better,” Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown said in a press release this week.

Among other things the Justice Department argues the plaintiff states lack legal standing to bring suit. Any suit should be brought by the employees themselves, the Justice Department argues. It also maintains the judge’s decision is based “on the incorrect conclusion that defendants conducted RIFs [reductions in force] which triggered the statutory RIF notice requirements.” The justice filing goes on to say that “in any event, an agency can legally terminate large numbers of probationers without cause.”