The United States Supreme Court has put a temporary hold on a lower court’s decision that sought to weaken one of President Trump’s vital reform efforts: the authority to remove entrenched federal employees who hinder executive power and resist necessary change.
As reported by Bloomberg, the Supreme Court’s ruling, which saw objections from two dissenting justices, overturned a lower court’s order that would have mandated the reinstatement of employees dismissed from six government departments.
The case, OPM, et al. v. AFGE, et al., saw the Court grant a stay on a March 13, 2025 injunction issued by a California district court, which had sided with a group of left-wing nonprofits attempting to shield federal workers from accountability. This pause allows for a full appeal and potential SCOTUS review, effectively stalling the lower court’s ruling that threatened Trump’s Schedule F executive order.
An unsigned order from the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiffs, composed of nonprofit organizations, lacked the standing needed to justify such a broad injunction. Citing Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, the Court emphasized that mere allegations from advocacy groups do not warrant emergency judicial intervention.
Liberal Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented, as expected. Justice Jackson downplayed the urgency of the matter, seemingly turning a blind eye to the chaos federal obstructionists have caused for past conservative administrations. Justice Sotomayor, aligned with the activist base, would have let the lower court’s injunction remain, potentially preserving the bloated bureaucracy indefinitely.
Additional insights from AP:
The justices acted in the administration’s emergency appeal of a ruling by a federal judge in California ordering that 16,000 probationary employees be reinstated while a lawsuit plays out because their firings didn’t follow federal law.
The Supreme Court’s decision temporarily keeps employees from six federal agencies on paid administrative leave. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated they would have upheld the judge’s order.
Moreover, a separate lawsuit in Maryland resulted in an order that also blocked these firings, affecting the same six agencies plus around a dozen more. This order applies within the 19 states and the District of Columbia involved in the lawsuit, with the Justice Department separately appealing this Maryland order.
The lawsuits claim at least 24,000 probationary employees have been terminated since Trump took office, although these numbers remain unconfirmed by the government.
Last month, US District Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee, ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of terminated probationary employees across six federal agencies. The judge criticized the administration, claiming he felt “misled by the US Government.”
“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Judge Alsup said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to avoid statutory requirements.”
The six agencies affected include the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Agriculture.
President Trump wasted no time in denouncing the decision by the radical Clinton-appointed judge, calling it “absolutely ridiculous” and cautioning that it sets a “very dangerous” precedent for the nation.
“Well, I have nothing to do with that other than I heard about the decision. I think it’s absolutely ridiculous—absolutely. It’s a judge who’s putting himself in the position of the President of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes. And you have that. You’re having more and more of that. It’s a very dangerous thing for our country, and I would suspect that we’re going to have to get a decision from the Supreme Court.”
Trump also highlighted the absurdity of the situation, noting how many of the fired employees rarely showed up for work, if they even existed at all:
“These are people who, in many cases, don’t show up for work. Nobody even knows if they exist. And a judge wants us to pay them, even if they don’t know they exist. If they exist, I don’t think that’s going to be happening, but we’ll have to see. You have to speak to the lawyers about that.”
This report has been updated to include additional information.
