US District Judge William Alsup has ruled that the Trump administration’s central human resources office acted unlawfully when it directed mass probationary worker firings as part of efforts to reduce the federal workforce. The decision, delivered in San Francisco, found that the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) exceeded its authority, usurping powers specifically reserved for individual federal agencies concerning their hiring and firing practices. This ruling comes after thousands of probationary employees were terminated following the change in administration, marking a significant legal outcome in a case closely watched by federal employees and labor organizations.
Judge Alsup explicitly stated that the Office of Personnel Management “unlawfully exceeded its own powers and usurped and exercised powers reserved by Congress to each individual” federal agency to hire and fire its own workers. This assertion formed the core of the judgment awarded to a coalition of labor unions and nonprofits that brought the lawsuit. The government had contended that OPM merely offered guidance to other agencies rather than directing employment decisions, a defense that Judge Alsup found unpersuasive, noting the government “disagrees but does not persuade.” This legal challenge has highlighted critical aspects of federal employment law and the limits of centralized administrative authority over agency-specific personnel matters.
The impact of OPM’s actions was significant, with more than 25,000 probationary workers terminated soon after President Trump took office in January. These figures were compiled from legal declarations provided by various departments as part of the lawsuit. The administration had justified these terminations by defining poor performance as employees not being “mission critical” during a period of government cutbacks, a rationale that particularly troubled Judge Alsup given the general understanding of probationary employment.
Probationary workers typically consist of younger employees embarking on their initial careers within the federal government. However, this category also encompasses older employees who have transitioned into new positions, making the definition quite broad. The period of probation is a crucial time for both the employee and the agency, allowing for evaluation before permanent status is granted. The extensive terminations thus affected a diverse group of individuals at different stages of their professional journeys within federal service, raising concerns about due process and federal employment protections.
Understanding the Impact of Probationary Worker Firings
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, issued a statement following the ruling, emphasizing its importance for the affected individuals and broader federal workforce policies.
“Judge Alsup’s decision makes clear that thousands of probationary workers were wrongfully fired, exposes the sham record the government relied upon, and requires the government to tell the wrongly terminated employees that OPM’s reasoning for firing them was false,” said Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees.
This strong statement from a key labor union leader underscores the perceived severity of the OPM’s actions and the direct impact on the affected employees. The American Federation of Government Employees has been a vocal proponent for federal workers’ rights, and this ruling provides significant validation for their advocacy against what they viewed as unlawful directives. The ruling affirms that the reasons provided for the mass dismissals were legally unfounded, necessitating a formal correction of records.
The legal process leading to this judgment was complex and involved prior judicial interventions. In March, Judge Alsup had initially issued an order for the reinstatement of these probationary workers, arguing that OPM had likely acted unlawfully in ordering the terminations across various agencies. However, this preliminary decision faced a setback in April when the U.S. Supreme Court set it aside. The Supreme Court’s action was based on a technicality and notably did not delve into the merits of the underlying case, leaving the core legal questions unanswered until Judge Alsup’s more recent comprehensive ruling. This procedural history highlights the intricate judicial path of the dispute and the persistent efforts by labor groups to challenge the administration’s directives.
Background to the Federal Employment Dispute
The origins of this legal dispute trace back to the initial months of the Trump administration, specifically to January, when a directive from the central human resources office, the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), led to widespread probationary worker firings. These terminations, impacting more than 25,000 individuals, were part of a broader presidential initiative to downsize the federal workforce. The administration cited reasons of poor performance, defining it as employees not being “mission critical” during a period of government cutbacks. This approach raised immediate questions about the process and legal basis for such mass dismissals.
The legality of these actions was swiftly challenged by a coalition of labor unions and nonprofits. Their lawsuit contended that OPM had overstepped its statutory authority, arguing that the power to hire and fire rests individually with each federal agency, not with a centralized human resources office providing what the government claimed was mere “guidance.” This foundational disagreement on the extent of OPM’s powers formed the crux of the legal battle, focusing on the interpretation of congressional mandates regarding federal employment. The plaintiff coalition sought to protect the rights of federal employees from what they viewed as an arbitrary and unlawful exercise of power.
Early in the judicial process, in March, US District Judge William Alsup had indicated that OPM’s actions were likely unlawful, leading to an order for reinstatement. However, this preliminary relief was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in April on technical grounds, leaving the fundamental question of legality unresolved until Judge Alsup’s more recent judgment. The case has thus evolved through several legal stages, consistently focusing on the proper division of authority within the federal employment system and the protections afforded to probationary employees, even as the specific circumstances of their employment were contested. The judicial scrutiny underscored the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks for federal employment actions.
- A US District Judge ruled the Trump administration’s central human resources office acted illegally.
- The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully directed mass firings of probationary workers.
- More than 25,000 probationary workers were terminated soon after President Trump took office.
- Judge Alsup ordered agencies to update personnel files and inform workers they were not fired for performance.
- Reinstatement of fired workers was not ordered due to the time elapsed and agency reorganizations.
What’s next
Following Judge Alsup’s definitive ruling, the immediate next steps involve the federal agencies named as defendants, with the exception of the State Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), complying with the court’s directives. These agencies are mandated to update the personnel files of the more than 25,000 affected probationary workers. This update is crucial for correcting the official record, ensuring that these individuals’ employment histories accurately reflect that their terminations were not due to poor performance, as was initially suggested by the OPM’s directive. The rectification of these records is a key component of the judgment, aiming to mitigate potential long-term career impacts for the affected individuals.
Concurrently, these agencies are required to dispatch individual letters to each terminated worker. These letters will explicitly communicate that the reason for their dismissal, as originally stated by OPM, was found to be false and that they were not terminated for performance-related issues. This communication aims to provide clarity and potentially mitigate any negative professional repercussions stemming from the initial unlawful firings. The specific language of these letters is intended to definitively state the judicial finding that OPM’s reasoning for their termination was false, providing a clear legal basis for the workers to understand their situation.
While the ruling has definitively established the illegality of OPM’s actions, the judge determined that direct reinstatement of the workers is no longer feasible due to the passage of time and significant changes within both the employees’ lives and the organizational structures of the federal agencies. Judge Alsup noted that many terminated probationary employees have since moved on with their lives, found new jobs, and might no longer be willing or able to return to their former posts. Furthermore, the federal agencies themselves have undergone transformations in the intervening months due to new executive priorities and sweeping reorganizations, meaning many probationers might not have a specific position to return to. Therefore, the focus now shifts from re-employment to rectifying past injustices in official records and acknowledging the erroneous nature of the initial termination directives [Source](https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2025/Sep/16/judge-rules-trump-administration-illegally-fired-thousands-of-probationary-workers). The Office of Personnel Management has not yet publicly commented on the ruling, leaving open questions about their future response or potential appeals.
