Upcoming Supreme Court Ruling on Federal Employee Reinstatement

A coalition of nonprofit organizations has urged the Supreme Court to support a federal judge’s order mandating the reinstatement of over 16,000 probationary federal employees. These employees were dismissed by six federal agencies earlier this year. The organizations contend that the reinstatement would not cause irreparable harm to the government and emphasize that the employees had only recently held their positions.

Background on Probationary Employees

Probationary employees in the federal system refer to individuals newly hired for roles, typically within the last 12 months. This classification may also include experienced federal workers transitioning to different positions. In February 2025, under the Trump administration, significant layoffs occurred aimed at reducing the federal workforce, impacting many probationary employees.

Legal Proceedings and Implications

The group arguing against the layoffs filed a lawsuit on February 19, citing violations of federal administrative laws by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The government denied responsibility for the firings; however, Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that OPM effectively directed agencies to terminate employees under misleading conditions, downplaying the role of performance evaluations in the process.

Preliminary Injunction Issued

On March 13, Judge Alsup issued a preliminary injunction that required OPM and the involved agencies—including the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, and Treasury—to reinstate the dismissed probationary employees promptly.

Appeal Process and Government Response

Following this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit expedited the government’s appeal, scheduling the government’s opening brief for April 10, while also refusing to suspend Alsup’s order during the appeal process. In response, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris petitioned the Supreme Court on March 25, asserting that Alsup’s ruling allowed external entities to disrupt the employment dynamic between the federal government and its workers.

Counterarguments from Nonprofits

The nonprofit groups counter the government’s claims regarding the lack of standing to sue. They argue that the termination of probationary employees adversely affects their members, particularly those associated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Additionally, they contest the government’s assertion that the only means for challenging employee terminations is through individual appeal processes to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Other Legal Developments

A similar situation unfolded in Maryland, where a federal district court issued a temporary injunction to stop the firings of probationary employees across 20 federal agencies, impacting workers in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld this order against the government’s request for a stay.

Potential Impacts of Reinstatement

The organizations filing the appeal assert that complying with Judge Alsup’s reinstatement order would not impose an excessive burden on the government, indicating that the ongoing legal processes demonstrate the feasibility of reinstating the affected employees.

This developing case could have significant ramifications for federal employment policies and the treatment of probationary employees as the Supreme Court prepares for a ruling that may come at any moment.

This article was initially published at Howe on the Court.