• A federal appeals court refused to pause a lower court ruling ordering the reinstatement of thousands of probationary federal employees fired in February.
• The Ninth Circuit Court upheld Judge Alsup’s injunction, with two judges (Clinton and Biden appointees) in the majority and a Trump-appointed judge dissenting.
• The court found that the firings violated federal “Reduction in Force” (RIF) procedures and that the administration failed to prove harm from reinstating workers.
• A separate ruling by Judge Bredar also forced the administration to reinstate over 24,000 probationary employees, rejecting claims that the dismissals were performance-based.
• The case is part of broader lawsuits alleging that the administration’s mass firings violated federal laws, including the Civil Service Reform Act.

A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to pause a lower court ruling that ordered several government agencies to reinstate thousands of probationary employees who were fired in February.

In a 2-1 decision on March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to grant a stay of U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s March 13 preliminary injunction, which required the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture and Department of the Treasury to immediately offer jobs back to employees terminated on or around Feb. 13. (Related: Trump administration targets 200,000 probationary federal workers in sweeping workforce cuts.)

Judges Barry Silverman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, and Ana de Alba, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, upheld Alsup’s injunction, while Judge Bridget Bade, appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.

“Reinstating the terminated employees does not mean that they will return to the same positions and assignments, or that the agencies will provide the services that the organizational plaintiffs desire,” Bade wrote. “It is just as likely that the various agencies will reassign these employees to new positions or assign them different tasks or prioritize their mission and services in a manner that does not result in increased services to the organizational plaintiffs, or even lawfully terminate the employees.”

However, the majority opinion stated that the Trump administration failed to show it was likely to succeed on appeal or that complying with the injunction would cause “irreparable harm.”

“Appellants have demonstrated neither that they are sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits of this appeal nor that they will suffer irreparable harm from complying with the preliminary injunction,” the majority of opinion read.

The judges also found that the administration did not prove that the lower court erred in determining that the six agencies had been directed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to fire probationary employees in violation of federal “Reduction in Force” (RIF) procedures.

Moreover, the court ruled that the plaintiffs, labor unions representing federal workers, had provided sufficient evidence of harm caused by the terminations.

Court forces Trump admin to reinstate 24,000 fired federal workers

Aside from failing to block the reinstatement of fired employees, the Trump administration was also left with no choice but to begin reinstating over 24,ooo federal probationary workers who were fired after a court ruled that the mass terminations were unlawful and not based on performance issues.

A week ago, U.S. District Judge James Bredar, appointed by former President Barack Obama, ruled that probationary employees fired across 18 federal agencies must be reinstated. Bredar rejected the government’s claim that the dismissals were performance-related, declaring it ‘isn’t true.’

This has left the administration with no choice but to adhere to the court’s order.

This case, including the San Francisco lawsuit, is just among several legal challenges contesting the administration’s push to restructure the federal workforce by dismissing probationary employees. Democratic state attorneys general and affected workers have also filed suits, alleging that the terminations violate federal laws such as the Reduction in Force Act and the Civil Service Reform Act.

Watch this video when investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson first reported in 2003 about how federal employees admitted they’re paid to do nothing.

This video is from the Bulgarianinsider channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Federal workers panic as DOGE audits expose culture of waste and incompetence.

Government waste exposed: Hegseth supports Musk’s demand for accountability from federal workers.

Federal worker’s resistance to Trump administration: A dangerous precedent for governance.

Govt. agency closed by DOGE looked like a palace inside, with oil paintings fit for a KING…

Trump administration directs federal agencies to prepare for major downsizing by March 13.

Sources include:

NYPost.com

ZeroHedge.com

Brighteon.com