Judge to consider blocking mass firings of government employees after 20 states sue

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: ABC News

March 11, 2025, 9:40 PM


A federal judge on Wednesday will consider the fate of more than 20,000 probationary government employees fired by the Trump administration. During a hearing in U.S. District Court in Maryland, Judge James Bredar will consider issuing a temporary restraining order that would block future firings and reinstate the probationary employees who have already been terminated.

The court hearing Wednesday comes after 20 Democratic attorneys general sued to block the firings last week. "These large-scale, indiscriminate firings are not only subjecting the Plaintiff States and communities across the country to chaos. They are also against the law," the Democratic officials argued in their complaint, which named 41 agencies and agency heads as defendants.

The attorneys general have argued that the Trump administration violated federal law with the firings by failing to give a required 60-day notice for a reduction in force, opting to pursue the terminations "suddenly and without any advance notice."

Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the states lack standing because they "cannot interject themselves into the employment relationship between the United States and government workers," and that to grant the temporary restraining order would "circumvent" the administrative process for challenging the firings.

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-blocking-mass-firings-government-employees-after-20/story?id=119695195

---

Link to COMPLAINT (PDF) - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578045/gov.uscourts.mdd.578045.1.0_2.pdf

[travelingthrulife]

1. Finally!

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Just checked and he is an Obama appointee

now in Senior status.

[LiberalLoner]

3. Yes! Thank you! Doesn't mean he will rule the way we wish, as he will carefully apply the law as he must do,

But there is the certainty he WILL apply the law, and not just rule in a partisan fashion.

I do worry about what will happen when it reaches the extreme court.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. The issue that keeps coming up is whether the plaintiffs can "show 'harm'"

and thus established "standing".

Normally when you have "individuals", they have an easier time at it but the groups (whether Unions or AGs) have had mixed results.

And having peeped at their complaint, and remembering some arguments from earlier articles, there was the mention of "a 60-day notice" before a termination. I.e., this applied in some states AND federally and is known as the "WARN Act" (which was passed by a veto-proof majority under Raygun)!

(Summary version)

S.2527 - Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act

(snip)

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act - Prohibits an employer from ordering a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of a proposal to issue such an order to: (1) the representative of the affected employees, or if there is no representative, to each affected employee; and (2) the State dislocated worker unit and the affected local government.

(snip)

BUT... they also cite these -

(Summary version)

H.R.1385 - Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998

Later amended/updated with -

(Summary version)

H.R.803 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

that requires notification to states about a RIF.

From the suit -

(snip)

C. RIF Notice Requirements
93. Under the federal RIF statute and associated regulations, federal agencies are required to
provide at least 60 days of prior written notice before they may release any federal civil service
employee under a RIF. The agency must provide the written notice to (a) the employee, (b) the
employee’s collective bargaining representative, and (c) the state or District where an affected
employee’s duty station was located if the RIF would involve at least 50 employees within the
competitive area, 5 U.S.C. § 3502(d); 5 C.F.R. § 351.803(b).
94. The notice to the state must be provided to the state or agency designated by the state to
perform rapid response activities under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, now called the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (“WIOA Agency”), and must also be provided
to “[t]he chief elected official of local government(s) within which these separations will occur.”
5 C.F.R. § 351.803(b); see 5 U.S.C. § 3502(d)(3)(A). The purpose of states’ “rapid response”
activities is to quickly make public and private resources available to workers who are laid off, to
minimize the disruption to the affected workers and their communities. To help the state or locality
Case 1:25-cv-00748-ABA Document 1 Filed 03/06/25 Page 22 of 55
23
prepare for the disruptions associated with job losses, notices must include: (a) the number of
employees to be separated from service due to the reduction in force, broken down by geographic
area and organizational unit, (b) when those separations will occur; and (c) other information that
may facilitate the delivery of services to the affected workers. 5 U.S.C. § 3502(d); 5 C.F.R.
§ 351.803(c).

(snip)

Of course initially, none of this was called a "RIF" until someone apparently mentioned the term to the loons and they eventually started retroactively calling it that after wantonly assuming that anyone who was "probationary" could be fired "without cause", which was complete bullshit as I have posted over and over.

(Now excuse me while I climb BACK out of the rabbit hole! )

[twodogsbarking]

5. Judge to decide whether to do the right thing or allow the dumbfuckedup thing.

There, fixed the headline.