On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the Trump administration’s decision to proceed with the firing of 16,000 probationary federal employees, at least temporarily. In an unsigned opinion, the Court did not address the legality of the terminations but ruled that the nonprofits challenging the dismissals lacked the legal standing to sue over the federal employees’ firings. The decision was reached with a 7-2 vote, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, preferring to maintain a pause on the firings while the case continues in lower courts.
This ruling specifically affects the nonprofits involved in the lawsuit and does not resolve the broader legal questions of the case. However, it does present challenges for groups aiming to dispute extensive layoffs by the government.
The court’s decision favors the Trump administration’s strategy to significantly reduce the size of federal agencies and programs by centralizing executive authority within the White House. This strategy underscores an executive order signed by President Trump on February 11, instructing the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to direct agencies to terminate all but essential probationary employees. These probationary workers include recent hires and tenured employees in new roles.
Several federal agencies acted quickly on the directive, resulting in thousands of firings. Unions representing federal workers, alongside nonprofit organizations, filed lawsuits against the OPM and various government departments, such as the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury, seeking to halt the dismissals. The lawsuits argued that the OPM lacked the authority to mandate these firings and that the government failed to adhere to proper procedures, including adequate notice to the affected employees and related state and local governments.
Initially, District Court Judge William Haskell Alsup ruled that the unions did not have standing to sue but permitted the nonprofits to continue their case, as they rely on government services and claim to be negatively impacted by the government’s diminished capacity.
Recently, following a brief hearing, Judge Alsup reinstated federal employees at six departments, stating that only the departments themselves, not OPM, had the authority to make such decisions on mass terminations.
The government countered that OPM did not command any action and maintained the terminations’ legality. This dispute led to an appeal, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.
In its arguments, the government contended that employment disputes are solely between the federal government and its employees, and thus the nonprofits lacked standing to sue on their behalf. The government emphasized that employees must utilize proper legal channels to challenge their dismissals individually.
The Supreme Court’s majority appeared to agree with the administration, ruling that the nonprofits did not possess the standing required to maintain their case. Despite allowing the administration to proceed with the firings for now as the case progresses through the judiciary, the Supreme Court did not address the legality of the terminations, potentially permitting future lawsuits with better standing arguments.
Meanwhile, a similar case is unfolding in Maryland, where 19 states and the District of Columbia are suing to reinstate employees across more than 20 agencies. They have seen partial success thus far, and the states may present a stronger case due to potentially more robust standing arguments than the nonprofits affected by the Supreme Court’s Tuesday decision.
