Appeals court skeptical of unions’ effort to reverse Trump federal worker firings
Appeals court skeptical of unions’ effort to reverse Trump federal worker firings
A federal appeals court signaled Tuesday that it may side with the Trump administration in a closely watched case over the mass firings of probationary federal employees, casting doubt on union-backed litigation aimed at reinstating them.
A three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — Judges Morgan Christen, a former President Barack Obama appointee, Daniel Bress, a President Donald Trump appointee, and Lawrence VanDyke, also a Trump appointee — heard arguments over whether federal employee unions can challenge the dismissals in district court or must instead pursue claims through the government’s internal labor system. The judges repeatedly pressed attorneys on whether the unions had legal standing to bring their lawsuit and whether the lower court had jurisdiction to intervene.
The case centers on a Trump executive order issued in April requiring federal agencies to certify that new hires “advance the public interest” before completing their probationary period. The order made it easier for managers to terminate probationary employees, who are still within their trial work period, without facing the hurdles that protect permanent staff. Labor unions say the directive led to the politically motivated dismissal of thousands of employees and that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) overstepped its authority by directing agencies to fire them.
A lawyer for the Justice Department argued that the federal government has broad authority over probationary employees and that unions must take their challenges through the Civil Service Reform Act’s administrative framework. The DOJ maintained that the district court in California, which earlier ordered the government to reinstate the workers and send corrective letters about the reasons for their dismissal, had no jurisdiction to intervene.
The appeals court appeared open to that argument.
VanDyke noted that the real decision-makers were the employing agencies that carried out the firings, not OPM, raising questions about whether the unions had sued the correct party.
“The weirdness of this case, from my perspective, is … OPM didn’t fire anybody itself,” VanDyke said. “It supposedly told agencies to fire somebody. So why can’t you just go after the agencies?”
Bress emphasized that Congress designed a comprehensive review process for personnel disputes through the U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority process, suggesting the case may have been improperly brought under the Administrative Procedure Act instead.
SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP PLAN TO CUT FEDERAL WORKFORCE
A ruling against the unions would mark another legal victory for Trump’s push to reshape the federal workforce. In July, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue wide-ranging layoffs of non-probationary employees while separate litigation plays out.
Last month, the 9th Circuit halted a lower-court order requiring the administration to turn over sealed copies of its layoff plans and an injunction keeping collective bargaining agreements in place.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
