Judge Rebukes Trump Admin Over Mass Firings: ‘Does Not Have Authority’

Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration’s Mass Firings: A Major Setback

In a significant blow to President Donald Trump’s second administration, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Thursday that the mass firings orchestrated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) were likely unlawful. The court granted temporary relief in favor of labor unions, halting the administration’s aggressive efforts to slash the federal workforce. The ruling comes just five weeks into Trump’s second term, as his administration faces mounting legal challenges across the country over its rapid and sweeping reductions in federal employees.

The controversy centers around the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an unofficial agency created by executive order and led by billionaire Elon Musk. DOGE, which began operating within the OPM shortly after Trump’s inauguration, has been instrumental in driving the workforce cuts. By late January, career civil servants were locked out of OPM computer systems, leaving the agency largely under DOGE’s control. The administration’s push to cut jobs has been met with fierce resistance, particularly from labor unions and nonprofit organizations, who argue that the firings are being carried out unlawfully.

The Legal Battle Over Federal Workforce Reductions

U.S. District Judge William Alsup, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, delivered a scathing rebuke of the OPM’s actions. He ordered the agency to inform federal agencies that it had "no authority whatsoever" to hire or fire employees on its own, under any statute. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by five labor unions and nonprofit organizations, which challenged a February 13 OPM order directing agencies to terminate all probationary employees. Initially, the OPM had instructed agencies to only cut employees with poor performance records, but just days later, it expanded the order to include all probationary workers, regardless of their performance.

The plaintiffs in the case, including the American Federation of Government Employees, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFGE Local 1216, and the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals, allege that the OPM’s actions constitute one of the largest employment frauds in U.S. history. They argue that tens of thousands of workers were falsely told they were being fired for performance reasons, when in reality, their terminations were part of a broader effort to reduce the federal workforce. Judge Alsup agreed with the plaintiffs, slamming the government for targeting probationary employees, whom he described as the "lifeblood of our government." He criticized the OPM for marking these employees with poor performance records as a justification for their firing.

Reactions and Implications of the Ruling

The ruling has been met with relief from labor unions and advocacy groups, who see it as a critical check on the Trump administration’s unprecedented efforts to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing the labor coalition, stated that the court’s decision serves as a clear warning to federal agencies that the OPM’s order was unlawful. The ruling temporarily halts the firings, but the legal battle is far from over. Judge Alsup has scheduled an evidentiary hearing for March 13, where the administration will have to defend its actions. Additionally, the judge plans to issue a written order in the coming days, further outlining his findings.

What’s Next in the Legal Fight

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the Trump administration’s ability to reshape the federal workforce. The administration has already faced setbacks in its efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. For instance, a judge recently ruled that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was not protected from legal challenges, despite concerns about the safety of staffers working in dangerous overseas locations. The latest ruling in San Francisco adds another layer of complexity to the administration’s agenda, as it grapples with mounting legal challenges across the country.

As the legal battle unfolds, the focus will shift to the March 13 hearing, where the administration will need to provide evidence to justify its actions. The case highlights the ongoing tension between the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline government operations and the protections afforded to federal employees under U.S. law. For now, the ruling offers a temporary reprieve for thousands of probationary employees facing termination, but the broader fight over the future of the federal workforce is likely to continue for months to come.