Authored by Gary Bai via The Epoch Times,
A federal judge on Sept. 24 upheld President Donald Trump’s decision to fire eight former inspectors general, despite opining that it violated a provision in the law that requires the president to give notice of the firing or provide a rationale.
Federal Judge Ana C. Reyes wrote that the inspectors general, who were fired in February, did not show “irreparable harm” with their alleged injury of not being able to perform their duties for 30 days—corresponding to the period of notice that the statute governing their removal demands.
As such, despite finding that Trump did not comply with this procedural notice requirement, the judiciary can’t reinstate the inspectors general, Judge Reyes wrote, describing the reinstatement as an “extraordinary remedy.”
It’s a “well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal affairs,” the court wrote, adding that the “IGs are officials in the Executive Branch, and the President’s authority to remove IGs is undisputed.”
The eight plaintiffs, who are nonpartisan watchdogs in federal agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of State, sued the Trump administration in February, days after he removed them from their positions.
They sought to be reinstated while Trump complies with the notice requirement of the Inspector General Act, the law that governs their removal and requires a 30-day notice from the president. In other words, they argue that they should keep their positions for 30 more days.
“It is decidedly wrong and decidedly contrary to the public interest to have statutory limits designed [to provide] much needed protection … against fraud, waste, and abuse flouted by the very official constitutionally charged to take care that Congress’s laws be faithfully executed,” plaintiffs wrote in their March 27 complaint, referring to Trump.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, counters that reinstating the inspectors general would be an unconstitutional intrusion into the president’s removal powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
“Granting the extraordinary relief requested would be an unprecedented intrusion into the President’s authority to exercise ‘all of ‘the ‘executive Power’ of the United States,” the Trump administration’s lawyers wrote in their reply. “It is in the government’s interest and the public’s interest for these Inspector General positions to be filled by individuals who have the President’s confidence.”
The court, while commenting that it’s “obvious” that Trump violated the Inspector General Act’s notice period requirement, sided with the Trump administration.
“In the typical case in which an employee challenges their firing, the loss of their job does not ‘constitute irreparable injury,’” the court wrote, explaining that an alternate, less drastic remedy for the plaintiffs is to “recover back pay and benefits—remedies they seek in their Complaint—if successful on the merits of their claims.”
Moreover, reinstating the inspectors general would interfere with the president’s duties, which cuts against the plaintiffs’ legal position.
“The President’s ability to choose and rely on trusted personnel is central to the effective functioning of the Executive Branch,” the court added, noting that this authority is part of the Constitution’s mandate on the president to take care that laws be faithfully executed.
And even if the court reinstates the plaintiffs, “the President could lawfully remove them after 30 days by providing the required notice and rationale to Congress,” the court wrote, and ordering a reinstatement—which is a “drastic remedy”—is therefore inappropriate.