The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to throw out a ruling blocking it from firing federal employees at six key agencies—as the Justice Department more broadly railed against the slew of court rulings against the government’s policies and called for justices to stop a purported “power grab” by the lower courts.
President Donald Trump (L) greets Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr as he arrives to ... More
The Trump administration asked justices to throw out a district court ruling that required the government to reinstate all probationary employees that were fired from the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior and Treasury on Feb. 13 and 14—part of broader job cuts across the federal workforce.
The district judge who blocked the firings didn’t have the authority to do so, the Trump administration argued, writing justices “should not allow a single district court to erase Congress’s handiwork and seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions.”
The Justice Department argued the case was part of a broader “untenable trend” of federal judges blocking Trump policies, as there have been a slew of court rulings against the administration in the months since President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
Trump officials have repeatedly made public comments criticizing unfavorable rulings by district court judges—and even called for those judges’ impeachments—with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying about another judge’s ruling barring some deportations, “A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.”
The slew of court rulings blocking administration policies is “unsustainable,” the Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court, claiming judges’ orders “have sown chaos as the Executive Branch scrambles to meet immediate compliance deadlines by sending huge sums of government money out the door, reinstating thousands of lawfully terminated workers, undoing steps to restructure Executive Branch agencies, and more.”
While the Trump administration’s filing only asks the Supreme Court to rule on this single case concerning mass firings, a decision from the justices that broadly takes aim at lower court judges for blocking policies nationwide—or upholds the district judges’ authority—could affect legal arguments or court rulings in other cases.
“The lower courts should not be allowed to transform themselves into all-purpose overseers of Executive Branch hiring, firing, contracting, and policymaking,” the Trump administration argued in its filing to the Supreme Court. “Only this Court can end the interbranch power grab.”
While the Supreme Court hasn’t yet weighed in on almost any of the many legal disputes against the Trump administration, Chief Justice John Roberts did speak out after the president publicly called for Judge James Boasberg to be impeached for blocking Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said, noting “the normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to halt the district court ruling blocking mass firings until a federal appeals court rules on whether to uphold it or not. Justices could also decide to take up the case for oral arguments and issue a ruling themselves on whether or not to allow the firings.
Approximately 24,000. That’s how many workers are expected to be rehired thanks to the district court ruling that the government is challenging at the Supreme Court, according to figures compiled by specialist publication Government Executive.
Judge William Alsup ruled March 14 that the Trump administration must rehire probationary staffers, which are employees who in most cases have only served in their role for less than a year. Alsup ruled the Office of Personnel Management did not have authority to fire workers at other federal agencies, also finding nonprofit organizations that were plaintiffs in the case faced "irreparable harm” after employees’ firings resulted in the organizations not getting paid or not being able to carry out their work. “Each federal agency has the statutory authority to hire and fire its employees, even at scale, subject to certain safeguards. The Office of Personnel Management has no authority to hire and fire employees in another agency,” Alsup wrote. “Yet that is what happened here — en masse.” The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then rejected the Trump administration’s request for it to pause Alsup’s ruling while it took up the case, but the appeals court has not yet issued a more lasting ruling on whether or not the firings were unlawful.
The dispute over mass firings marks the third major case to make it to the Supreme Court since Trump’s inauguration, after justices have also been asked to consider the firing of former Office of Special Counsel head Hampton Dellinger and Trump’s order rescinding birthright citizenship. The high court temporarily allowed Dellinger to remain in his role—until a lower court ruled the Trump administration could fire him—and has not yet weighed in on the birthright citizenship case. Trump and his allies have gotten increasingly frustrated with federal judges as court rulings against the administration have piled up, with some GOP lawmakers filing articles of impeachment against judges and introducing legislation that would bar district court judges from blocking policies nationwide. The outcry against judges has also spurred fears about the Trump administration potentially ignoring court rulings, particularly after Vice President JD Vance declared in February that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” There’s an ongoing dispute in court now over whether the Trump administration ignored a court ruling by deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, with their flights landing after an order blocking them had been issued. The Trump administration has denied any wrongdoing, however, claiming it believes the court lost jurisdiction over the flights once they left U.S. airspace.