Please note that this post does not constitute legal advice about your individual circumstances, and our firm only represents you if you have a signed representation agreement with our firm.
Background: Two courts ordered agencies to rehire federal workers.
After the Trump Administration’s mass terminations of probationary and trial employees in February, a coalition of law firms filed approximately twenty class actions at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), challenging the terminations. At the same time, unions, nonprofits, and states filed suit in federal court, calling for an injunction to halt the terminations and put federal workers back on the job while litigation progresses.
Last month, two federal courts agreed, ordering the Trump Administration to reinstate thousands of probationary federal workers in two separate decisions. First, Judge Alsup of the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction requiring reinstatement of employees at six agencies: Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Interior, Energy, Defense, and Treasury. Second, Judge Bredar of the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction and opinion requiring reinstatement of employees at eighteen agencies. Together, the temporary court orders issued by Judges Alsup and Bredar required the government to reinstate the vast majority of terminated probationary employees.
Both judges correctly recognized that the Government broke the law through its unprecedented mass terminations of probationary employees. They held that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, and that allowing the Trump administration to continue with the terminations during litigation would cause irreparable harm.
Their orders provided an early victory for all those affected by the illegal terminations. However, the government quickly appealed both decisions.
What just changed?
On Tuesday, April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court put an indefinite pause on the Northern District of California’s order, which required six agencies to reinstate probationary workers. Then, on Wednesday, April 9, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also paused the District of Maryland’s order, which applied to a broader set of agencies. That means that right now, neither of those orders are in effect.
These decisions do NOT mean that the Trump Administration’s mass terminations of probationary workers were legal. These decisions were not about the merits of the argument that the government violated the law when it terminated thousands of probationary workers. Rather, these decisions are about who can challenge the Trump Administration’s illegal mass layoff and what process they have to use to do so.
The plaintiffs in the Northern District of California case were third-party groups (like non-profits) who argued that the government’s mass termination of federal workers hurt them. The plaintiffs in the Maryland case were nineteen states and the District of Columbia, arguing that violations of the RIF rights harmed them. In each of those cases, the Administration is arguing that—because these claims are about federal workers’ rights—they have to go to the MSPB before they can go to federal court. The Administration is also arguing that those third-party groups don’t have “standing” (that is, that they don’t have the right to bring those cases).
This week, the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit said that it is not clear that those third-party groups or state Attorneys General can bring these claims. Those courts did not say that the terminations were lawful—in fact, they didn’t address the legality of the terminations at all.
What does that mean for terminated probationary employees?
Without a court order in place, some agencies may attempt to reinstitute their prior terminations of probationary employees.
On April 10, the Commerce Department began firing probationary and trial period workers again—saying that because the Maryland order was no longer in effect, the Department was “reverting [workers’] termination action to its original effective date.” If you work at another agency and have received a similar letter, you may contact us at FedEmpClass@jamhoff.com, but please note this would be for our informational purposes only.
What does this mean for the pending MSPB class appeals?
The class action appeals filed by James & Hoffman and other law firms at the MSPB are still moving forward. Most cases are currently in discovery.
On a practical level, the decisions this week may embolden the Administration to begin targeting workers for termination again. But that doesn’t make it legal to do so.
At this time, employees do not need to do anything to be covered by these appeals. Individuals who are not named plaintiffs may benefit from relief achieved in a class action, if the class is certified. Further, employees do not need to be clients of the firm to benefit from the class action.
* * *
Finally, we want to acknowledge that this is a destabilizing and difficult time for federal workers. We are committed to continuing to challenge these unlawful firings at the MSPB.
-Sejal Singh, attorney at James & Hoffman
.