A federal judge signaled on Wednesday the potential restriction of a previous ruling that mandated the reinstatement of nearly 25,000 probationary workers by the Trump administration.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar issued a comprehensive order two weeks ago that overturned the administration’s mass terminations across 18 major federal agencies, encompassing most Cabinet departments. While this order had a nationwide effect, Bredar suggested during a court hearing that he might modify it to apply solely to 19 states and the District of Columbia—jurisdictions involved in the lawsuit against the firings.
This adjustment would allow the administration to proceed with terminations in the 31 states that did not participate in the legal action.
Notably, states with Democratic attorneys general tended to support the lawsuit, contrasting with states led by Republican attorneys general.
During the hearing, Bredar expressed little doubt regarding the administration’s violation of civil service law and federal regulations through the mass firing of probationary employees without adhering to established procedures for a ‘reduction in force’ and failing to provide legally mandated notifications to states.
However, he deliberated on the feasibility of confining the injunction to the suing states.
According to the Partnership for Public Service, the jurisdictions with the highest concentrations of federal workers include the District of Columbia, Virginia, California, Maryland, and Texas. While the District of Columbia, California, and Maryland are plaintiffs, Virginia and Texas are not involved in the lawsuit.
Bredar emphasized the importance of judicial authority and the obligation to address harms within one’s purview. While considering the impact of a nationwide injunction, he highlighted the need for a clear rationale, suggesting its inapplicability in this scenario.
Virginia Williamson from the Maryland attorney general’s office argued that restricting reinstatements to suing states would not effectively remedy the situation, given the common practice of federal workers living in one state and working in another, particularly around Washington, D.C.
Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton defended the legality of the firings, contending that they did not constitute a ‘reduction in force’ under prevailing laws. He vehemently opposed an extended nationwide directive from the judge.
Hamilton also cited the financial and logistical challenges of rehiring a large number of employees, underscoring the government’s position that the firings were lawful and necessary.
Bredar’s decision on the injunction’s scope will not be conclusive, as another federal judge in San Francisco, responding to a separate lawsuit from federal employee unions and affected nonprofits, also mandated nationwide reinstatements at six Cabinet agencies. The Trump administration has sought Supreme Court intervention to counter this order.
Furthermore, in other cases challenging Trump’s executive orders, the Justice Department has appealed to the Supreme Court to restrict district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions that transcend the immediate lawsuit parties. The administration’s responses to these appeals are pending.
Trump has publicly criticized nationwide injunctions, expressing concerns about single district court judges influencing national policies pending review by higher courts.
Bredar is expected to extend the reinstatement order temporarily while exploring a more focused and lasting injunction. Both parties have been instructed to submit briefs detailing their preferences for the injunction’s design.
