Connect with us

Politics

Judges Have Ordered Federal Workers Back on the Job. Now What?

Published

on

Judges Have Ordered Federal Workers Back on the Job. Now What?

Last month, thousands of employees with probationary status across the federal government were fired by the Trump administration in an extraordinary and coordinated move. On Thursday, a pair of court rulings called for agencies to reinstate a untold number of them.

What happens now isn’t so clear cut.

Agencies are sorting out how to bring back these employees and give them the back pay ordered by the courts. Some of the fired workers may indeed return to their jobs. Others may be placed on administrative leave until their agencies undergo a round of large-scale layoffs, the planning for which is already underway.

The mass firings of probationary workers were just one early phase of President Trump’s aggressive plan to shrink the federal government. His administration appeared to target probationary employees because they do not have the same civil service protections as employees who have been in their job longer. But a flurry of challenges to the legality of how Trump officials went about ordering up the personnel changes have resulted in some reprieves, at least temporarily or on paper.

In interviews and on social media, fired employees expressed excitement about being reinstated and getting paid for the days since they were fired. Still, many employees are in the dark, learning details about their livelihood through media reports.

Advertisement

Here is what we know about the reinstatements, and what we don’t.

The rulings, in federal courts in California and Maryland, call for a pause in the firings and reinstatement of probationary employees across 19 agencies. The cases themselves will continue to move forward, with the government planning to appeal.

But the plaintiffs’ goals were to at least temporarily stop the administration from firing more probationary workers and obtain relief, such as back pay, for the employees already out of work.

The judges ruled that the firings were carried out unlawfully in accordance with orders from the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources office. Only the agencies themselves have the authority to direct those personnel changes, one of the judges wrote.

Judge James Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland restricted the government from firing any more probationary workers for two weeks. Judge Bredar said the employees covered in the lawsuit, who are from 18 different agencies, must be reinstated by March 17.

Advertisement

Judge William H. Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered the government to pause firings and reinstate probationary employees at six agencies while the case continues. His order applied to the Pentagon, the Treasury, and the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and the Interior.

Lawyers representing those groups estimated at least 10,000 people were affected across those agencies, numbers more or less consistent with data collected by The Times.

The judge’s orders follow a similar decision handed down by the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent administrative body that reviews government personnel decisions. It ordered on March 5 that certain probationary employees, mostly from the Department of Agriculture, be reinstated for at least 45 days.

It depends on who you ask. There does not appear to be a uniform way that agencies are going about reinstating fired probationary employees.

Tim Kauffman, a spokesman for the American Federation of Government Workers, which is involved in one of the cases, said the union does not know how many of its members will be offered their jobs back. Mr. Kauffman said agencies had denied union requests for the number of fired probationary employees.

Advertisement

The union representing workers for the Internal Revenue Service sent an email to probationary employees who were fired, informing them that they were in the process of speaking with agency management about the next steps. In the email, shared with The New York Times, the National Treasury Employees Union said employees with one agency — the Energy Department — have started receiving reinstatement notifications after the court orders on Thursday.

“We are pressing other agencies to issue reinstatement notices as quickly as possible,” the email stated. The Energy Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Some employees from the National Institutes of Health were notified of their reinstatement through an email Thursday from the agency’s human resources division.

“Upon further review, the agency has determined to rescind the letter sent to you on 2/15/2025,” the email stated, adding that the National Institutes of Health will work with them on a return to their jobs. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Some fired probationary employees from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have heard from the agency’s human resources division that reinstatements are underway, according to Cat Farman, the president of the local chapter of the employee union. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Other fired employees, however, are still getting “off-boarding” messages from the agency, Ms. Farman said, such as reminders to turn in their government-issued equipment.

Not necessarily.

The Department of Agriculture, for example, said in a statement this week that it had returned all its fired probationary workers to “pay status” as of Wednesday. The statement did not say how many, or if any, workers would be returning to their jobs.

“The department will work quickly to develop a phased plan for return to duty, and while those plans materialize, all probationary employees will be paid,” the statement said.

But it was not clear that similar information was communicated to all of the fired employees at the agency. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

“I’m getting really frustrated,” said Jacob Bushno, one of the probationary employees fired. He said he has not received any communications from the agency, and that he had reached out to his human resources department and his managers.

“Zero. No guidance,” he said on Friday. Mr. Bushno, a veteran who did two tours in Iraq while he was in the Army’s air assault division, was fired just seven days before he completed his one-year probationary period at the Forest Service.

“When will we get paid/back pay? Do we get to come back to the office?” he asked.

A probationary employee who was fired from Housing and Urban Development last month similarly has not heard from the agency. The employee spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. The housing agency did not respond to a request for comment. Ashaki Robinson, a representative for the union that represents workers at the agency, said the union has not heard of any fired employees hearing from the agency as of late Friday afternoon.

Yes.

Advertisement

The judge’s rulings do not protect anyone from mass firings through other methods in the future. As the rulings came down on Thursday, federal agencies were finalizing plans to cut an even larger swath of the federal work force.

In the Maryland case, the judge told the government that it couldn’t carry out future mass firings without prior notice as required by law.

In the case in California, the judge made plain that agencies planning to conduct large-scale layoffs, known as a “reduction in force,” can still proceed in accordance with the laws that govern such processes — meaning that the reprieves for workers may only be temporary.

Apoorva Mandavilli contributed reporting.

Advertisement

Politics

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump legal group seeking access to a trove of federal judiciary documents, including from a body overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – putting an end to a protracted legal fight brought by Trump allies seeking to access key judicial documents. 

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee assigned to the case earlier this year, dismissed the long-shot lawsuit brought by the America First Legal Foundation, the pro-Trump group founded by White House policy adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first term; Miller, now back in the White House, is no longer affiliated with AFL.

McFadden ultimately dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying Thursday that two groups responsible for certain regulatory and administrative functions for the federal judiciary are an extension of the judicial branch, and therefore protected by the same exemptions to federal laws granted to the judiciary.

“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” McFadden said.

Advertisement

TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON VOTING BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES AMID FLURRY OF LEGAL SETBACKS

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen at the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The lawsuit by AFL was first reported by Fox News Digital earlier this year. It named both Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and sought access to a trove of judicial documents from both bodies under the Freedom of Information Act.

AFL accused both groups of performing regulatory actions that the lawsuit argued exceeded the scope of the “core functions” of the judiciary, and which it argued should subject the groups to the FOIA requests as a result.

AFL cited recent actions the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office had taken in 2023 to “accommodate” requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an “ethics code” for justices on the high court.

Advertisement

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL argued.

“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts, they said.

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

McFadden disagreed, rejecting the group’s argument that “courts” under FOIA refers only to judges. He concluded that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are components of the judicial branch and therefore exempt from FOIA.

Advertisement

“Indeed, if America First were right that only judges and ‘law clerks,’ who ‘directly report to the judge,’ count as part of ‘the courts,’ numerous questions arise, and senseless line drawing ensues,” he said in a memo opinion accompanying his order. “Rather, FOIA’s exclusion reflects that courts include a full range of ‘judicial adjuncts,’ from ‘clerks’ to ‘court reporters,’ who perform ‘tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.’” 

Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, had argued in their lawsuit earlier this year that the Judicial Conference’s duties are “executive functions” and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers “who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers.” 

Courts “definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the group had argued.

The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. Overseen by the chief justice, it issues policy recommendations and reports to Congress as needed.

TRUMP IS THREATENING TO ‘FEDERALIZE’ DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT 

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C. ((Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty))

The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things.

The news comes as President Donald Trump, in his first year back in the White House, has relied heavily on executive orders to advance his agenda — a strategy that has accelerated implementation of campaign promises but also prompted a surge of legal challenges.

 

Trump’s actions sparked hundreds of federal lawsuits this year alone, sending tensions skyrocketing between the executive branch and the courts, including federal judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s biggest priorities in his second term. 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

Published

on

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Advertisement

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Advertisement

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Advertisement

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Advertisement

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

Published

on

Video: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

new video loaded: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

transcript

transcript

President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

Marijuana was downgraded from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug on Thursday. The reclassification does not legalize cannabis, but it does ease restrictions on the substance and allows for more research.

Today, I’m pleased to announce that I will be signing an executive order to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance with legitimate medical uses. We have people begging for me to do this. I want to emphasize that the order I am about to sign is not the legalization or it doesn’t legalize marijuana in any way, shape, or form, and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug — has nothing to do with that.

Advertisement
Marijuana was downgraded from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug on Thursday. The reclassification does not legalize cannabis, but it does ease restrictions on the substance and allows for more research.

December 18, 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending