Thousands of fired federal workers must be rehired immediately, judge rules

volsrocks said:
What gives this Judge the authority to tell the Dept of Defense to hire people back


Probationary employees, do not have “due process” rights!

CAN BE FIRED AT ANYTIME
Click to expand...
The authority of a judge to order the Department of Defense (DoD) or any federal agency to reinstate employees stems from the U.S. legal system, specifically the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing federal law. In this case, based on the context of events reported on March 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a preliminary injunction requiring several agencies, including the DoD, to rehire probationary employees who were fired. Here’s what gives the judge this authority:

  1. Judicial Review and Checks and Balances: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial. Federal judges, like Alsup, have the power to review actions taken by the executive branch (which includes the DoD and other agencies) to ensure they comply with federal laws and the Constitution. If a judge finds that an agency’s actions violate the law, they can issue orders to correct the violation, such as reinstating employees.
  2. Violation of Statutory Authority: In this specific case, Judge Alsup ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lacked the legal authority to direct agencies like the DoD to terminate probationary employees. OPM’s role is to oversee federal human resources policies, but it does not have the statutory power to mandate hiring or firing decisions at other agencies. Alsup determined that OPM’s directives were unlawful, and since the DoD acted on those directives, the firings were invalid. Federal courts can intervene when an agency exceeds its legal authority, a principle rooted in administrative law.
  3. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The APA governs how federal agencies operate and allows courts to review agency actions. If an agency’s decision is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” a judge can overturn it. Alsup’s ruling suggests he viewed OPM’s orders—and the DoD’s compliance—as violating the APA or other legal standards, giving him grounds to issue an injunction.
  4. Jurisdiction Over Federal Agencies: As a U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of California, Alsup has jurisdiction over cases involving federal agencies when they affect parties within his district or when the case is properly brought before him. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions and advocacy groups, challenged the firings as illegal, and Alsup’s court had the authority to hear this dispute and issue binding orders to the agencies named in the case, including the DoD.
  5. Injunctive Relief: Judges can issue injunctions—court orders requiring parties to take or stop specific actions—to prevent harm or enforce the law. Alsup’s preliminary injunction on March 13, 2025, ordered the immediate reinstatement of fired employees at the DoD and other agencies, reflecting his finding that the terminations caused significant harm and were likely unlawful. This is a standard judicial power used to maintain the status quo while legal proceedings continue.
In summary, Judge Alsup’s authority comes from his role as a federal judge empowered to ensure executive agencies like the DoD follow the law. His ruling doesn’t mean he has “more power” than the President or the DoD in a general sense, but rather that he can check specific actions deemed illegal, as part of the judiciary’s constitutional function. The DoD must comply unless the ruling is overturned by a higher court, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or unless the legal basis for the firings is otherwise resolved.

@Grok
 
AProudLefty said:
The authority of a judge to order the Department of Defense (DoD) or any federal agency to reinstate employees stems from the U.S. legal system, specifically the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing federal law. In this case, based on the context of events reported on March 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a preliminary injunction requiring several agencies, including the DoD, to rehire probationary employees who were fired. Here’s what gives the judge this authority:

  1. Judicial Review and Checks and Balances: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial. Federal judges, like Alsup, have the power to review actions taken by the executive branch (which includes the DoD and other agencies) to ensure they comply with federal laws and the Constitution. If a judge finds that an agency’s actions violate the law, they can issue orders to correct the violation, such as reinstating employees.
  2. Violation of Statutory Authority: In this specific case, Judge Alsup ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lacked the legal authority to direct agencies like the DoD to terminate probationary employees. OPM’s role is to oversee federal human resources policies, but it does not have the statutory power to mandate hiring or firing decisions at other agencies. Alsup determined that OPM’s directives were unlawful, and since the DoD acted on those directives, the firings were invalid. Federal courts can intervene when an agency exceeds its legal authority, a principle rooted in administrative law.
  3. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The APA governs how federal agencies operate and allows courts to review agency actions. If an agency’s decision is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” a judge can overturn it. Alsup’s ruling suggests he viewed OPM’s orders—and the DoD’s compliance—as violating the APA or other legal standards, giving him grounds to issue an injunction.
  4. Jurisdiction Over Federal Agencies: As a U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of California, Alsup has jurisdiction over cases involving federal agencies when they affect parties within his district or when the case is properly brought before him. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions and advocacy groups, challenged the firings as illegal, and Alsup’s court had the authority to hear this dispute and issue binding orders to the agencies named in the case, including the DoD.
  5. Injunctive Relief: Judges can issue injunctions—court orders requiring parties to take or stop specific actions—to prevent harm or enforce the law. Alsup’s preliminary injunction on March 13, 2025, ordered the immediate reinstatement of fired employees at the DoD and other agencies, reflecting his finding that the terminations caused significant harm and were likely unlawful. This is a standard judicial power used to maintain the status quo while legal proceedings continue.
In summary, Judge Alsup’s authority comes from his role as a federal judge empowered to ensure executive agencies like the DoD follow the law. His ruling doesn’t mean he has “more power” than the President or the DoD in a general sense, but rather that he can check specific actions deemed illegal, as part of the judiciary’s constitutional function. The DoD must comply unless the ruling is overturned by a higher court, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or unless the legal basis for the firings is otherwise resolved.

@Grok
Click to expand...
So what made the firings against the law?
 
Damocles said:
lol tRump may be sincere, I cannot tell yet. I have far more of your posts to work with though...
Click to expand...
:rofl2:

You've already lost the argument along with your credibility with your opening sentence.

Everything from here on out will automatically be considered delusional bullshit.
Damocles said:
I try to talk about ideas, you consistently drag the conversation back to tRump... so, we'll go there, you've dragged the conversation to your level but still lose.
Click to expand...
1) Your "ideas" are not as high brow as you apparently think they are. Barely decipherable half the time.

2) trump, as vile as he is, is all ANYBODY is talking about right now because he's the one fucking up our economy, our country and likely the world. You don't want to talk about him because you know we're right about how he's fucking everything up, so you want to change the subject.

Guess what .. we're not going let you.
Damocles said:
This isn't a sign of sincerity and certainly is not a sign of "righteousness" you aren't even consistent. Your new Neocon personality supporting the constant funding of the Never Ending War is obsequious rather than sincere, you will never walk off the line the leftists tell you to walk even when it is opposite of where you want to go. Remember when tRump promised to end the War in Ukraine?... Well, it certainly looks like it is going to happen... Russia agreed to the cease fire and talks are going on right now, but you are now leftist warmongers, neocons extraordinaire... and only because the person creating the environment that may end in peace is what you call the "MAGA Orange Jesus"...
Click to expand...
More side-stepping.

What we on the left support, is not letting trump's Russian meat suppository stomp all over Ukraine and use it as a path to invading Europe. Something world leaders are legitimately worried about, but something you trump sack-lickers are either too thick-headed or too clueless about basic geo-politics to understand or you're more interested in keeping trump's sack tongue-bathed than you are in the security of our European allies and trading partners.

Or maybe it's just that good ol' right-wing 'Murican redneck hatred of anything European, so you just don't care.
Damocles said:
If tRump is successful at balancing a budget and cutting government spending he may even win my support, though I will never vote for him...
Click to expand...
The S&P 500 stock market is officially in correction now, meaning that trump's reckless amateur clownshow has driven stock prices down to the danger level. Things are about to get ugly.

The entire market as well as small business ownership nationwide is in panic mode, but here you sit idyllicly dreaming and musing about trump successfully proving all the dang ol' lib'ruls wrong.

You must piss trump Kool Aid non stop 24/7.
 
AProudLefty said:
The authority of a judge to order the Department of Defense (DoD) or any federal agency to reinstate employees stems from the U.S. legal system, specifically the judiciary's role in interpreting and enforcing federal law. In this case, based on the context of events reported on March 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a preliminary injunction requiring several agencies, including the DoD, to rehire probationary employees who were fired. Here’s what gives the judge this authority:

  1. Judicial Review and Checks and Balances: The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government—legislative, executive, and judicial. Federal judges, like Alsup, have the power to review actions taken by the executive branch (which includes the DoD and other agencies) to ensure they comply with federal laws and the Constitution. If a judge finds that an agency’s actions violate the law, they can issue orders to correct the violation, such as reinstating employees.
  2. Violation of Statutory Authority: In this specific case, Judge Alsup ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lacked the legal authority to direct agencies like the DoD to terminate probationary employees. OPM’s role is to oversee federal human resources policies, but it does not have the statutory power to mandate hiring or firing decisions at other agencies. Alsup determined that OPM’s directives were unlawful, and since the DoD acted on those directives, the firings were invalid. Federal courts can intervene when an agency exceeds its legal authority, a principle rooted in administrative law.
  3. Administrative Procedure Act (APA): The APA governs how federal agencies operate and allows courts to review agency actions. If an agency’s decision is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” a judge can overturn it. Alsup’s ruling suggests he viewed OPM’s orders—and the DoD’s compliance—as violating the APA or other legal standards, giving him grounds to issue an injunction.
  4. Jurisdiction Over Federal Agencies: As a U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of California, Alsup has jurisdiction over cases involving federal agencies when they affect parties within his district or when the case is properly brought before him. The lawsuit, filed by labor unions and advocacy groups, challenged the firings as illegal, and Alsup’s court had the authority to hear this dispute and issue binding orders to the agencies named in the case, including the DoD.
  5. Injunctive Relief: Judges can issue injunctions—court orders requiring parties to take or stop specific actions—to prevent harm or enforce the law. Alsup’s preliminary injunction on March 13, 2025, ordered the immediate reinstatement of fired employees at the DoD and other agencies, reflecting his finding that the terminations caused significant harm and were likely unlawful. This is a standard judicial power used to maintain the status quo while legal proceedings continue.
In summary, Judge Alsup’s authority comes from his role as a federal judge empowered to ensure executive agencies like the DoD follow the law. His ruling doesn’t mean he has “more power” than the President or the DoD in a general sense, but rather that he can check specific actions deemed illegal, as part of the judiciary’s constitutional function. The DoD must comply unless the ruling is overturned by a higher court, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or unless the legal basis for the firings is otherwise resolved.

@Grok
Click to expand...

Alsup said agencies have statutory authority to order Reductions in Force, or mass layoffs of federal employees,

Rehire and lay them all off!

Happy now
 
volsrocks said:
So what made the firings against the law?
Click to expand...
Based on the details surrounding U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s ruling on March 13, 2025, the firings of probationary employees at the Department of Defense (DoD) and other federal agencies were deemed unlawful due to a combination of procedural and statutory violations. While the exact legal reasoning depends on the specifics of the case (which I’ll infer from available context), here’s what likely made the firings illegal:

  1. Lack of Statutory Authority by OPM: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed federal agencies, including the DoD, to terminate certain probationary employees. Judge Alsup ruled that OPM did not have the legal authority under federal law to issue such a directive. OPM’s role is to set personnel policies and provide guidance, not to unilaterally mandate firing decisions across agencies. If OPM overstepped its statutory bounds, any actions taken by the DoD based on that directive—like the firings—would be invalid because they stemmed from an unlawful order.
  2. Violation of Due Process: Probationary federal employees have limited job protections compared to permanent staff, but they are still entitled to certain procedural rights under federal law and regulations (e.g., 5 CFR Part 315). If the firings bypassed required procedures—such as providing notice, a chance to respond, or a justification tied to performance or conduct—Judge Alsup could have found that the terminations violated the employees’ due process rights. The abrupt nature of the firings, reportedly affecting thousands across multiple agencies, suggests a blanket policy rather than individualized assessments, which could breach these protections.
  3. Arbitrary and Capricious Action Under the APA: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires federal agency actions to be reasoned, not “arbitrary and capricious.” If OPM’s directive and the DoD’s compliance lacked a rational basis—say, if it was a broad, unexplained purge not tied to budget cuts, misconduct, or operational needs—Alsup could have ruled it unlawful under the APA. The judge’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction implies he found the firings likely lacked legal grounding or sufficient justification.
  4. Misapplication of Probationary Period Rules: Federal probationary employees can be terminated more easily than tenured employees, but the process still must align with applicable laws and agency policies. For example, terminations typically must relate to performance or suitability issues, not external mandates unrelated to the employee’s work. If OPM’s order was a top-down edict (possibly tied to political or ideological motives, as some reports suggest a “woke” policy backlash), and the DoD fired employees without evidence of cause, this could violate civil service regulations.
  5. Potential Discrimination or Retaliation: The lawsuit, backed by labor unions and advocacy groups like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), may have argued that the firings targeted specific groups—potentially based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics—or were retaliation for union activity or whistleblowing. If evidence supported this, Alsup could have found the terminations violated anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) or whistleblower protections, though this is speculative without the full court record.

Context and Reasoning​

Reports indicate this case ties to a broader controversy over a December 2024 OPM memo, issued under Director Kiran Ahuja, which some critics labeled as enforcing “woke” hiring practices. After Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, a backlash led to OPM ordering agencies to fire probationary employees hired under this policy. Alsup’s ruling suggests this reversal was mishandled legally—likely because OPM lacked authority to dictate mass firings, or the process ignored employees’ rights.

In short, the firings were against the law because they likely stemmed from an unauthorized OPM directive, violated procedural protections, and/or lacked a lawful basis under federal statutes like the APA. Judge Alsup’s injunction reflects a finding that the agencies’ actions were, at least preliminarily, unjustified and illegal, pending further litigation. For the exact legal citations or reasoning, the full court opinion would be needed, but this aligns with standard principles of administrative and employment law.

@Grok
 
AProudLefty said:
Based on the details surrounding U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s ruling on March 13, 2025, the firings of probationary employees at the Department of Defense (DoD) and other federal agencies were deemed unlawful due to a combination of procedural and statutory violations. While the exact legal reasoning depends on the specifics of the case (which I’ll infer from available context), here’s what likely made the firings illegal:

  1. Lack of Statutory Authority by OPM: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed federal agencies, including the DoD, to terminate certain probationary employees. Judge Alsup ruled that OPM did not have the legal authority under federal law to issue such a directive. OPM’s role is to set personnel policies and provide guidance, not to unilaterally mandate firing decisions across agencies. If OPM overstepped its statutory bounds, any actions taken by the DoD based on that directive—like the firings—would be invalid because they stemmed from an unlawful order.
  2. Violation of Due Process: Probationary federal employees have limited job protections compared to permanent staff, but they are still entitled to certain procedural rights under federal law and regulations (e.g., 5 CFR Part 315). If the firings bypassed required procedures—such as providing notice, a chance to respond, or a justification tied to performance or conduct—Judge Alsup could have found that the terminations violated the employees’ due process rights. The abrupt nature of the firings, reportedly affecting thousands across multiple agencies, suggests a blanket policy rather than individualized assessments, which could breach these protections.
  3. Arbitrary and Capricious Action Under the APA: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires federal agency actions to be reasoned, not “arbitrary and capricious.” If OPM’s directive and the DoD’s compliance lacked a rational basis—say, if it was a broad, unexplained purge not tied to budget cuts, misconduct, or operational needs—Alsup could have ruled it unlawful under the APA. The judge’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction implies he found the firings likely lacked legal grounding or sufficient justification.
  4. Misapplication of Probationary Period Rules: Federal probationary employees can be terminated more easily than tenured employees, but the process still must align with applicable laws and agency policies. For example, terminations typically must relate to performance or suitability issues, not external mandates unrelated to the employee’s work. If OPM’s order was a top-down edict (possibly tied to political or ideological motives, as some reports suggest a “woke” policy backlash), and the DoD fired employees without evidence of cause, this could violate civil service regulations.
  5. Potential Discrimination or Retaliation: The lawsuit, backed by labor unions and advocacy groups like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), may have argued that the firings targeted specific groups—potentially based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics—or were retaliation for union activity or whistleblowing. If evidence supported this, Alsup could have found the terminations violated anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) or whistleblower protections, though this is speculative without the full court record.

Context and Reasoning​

Reports indicate this case ties to a broader controversy over a December 2024 OPM memo, issued under Director Kiran Ahuja, which some critics labeled as enforcing “woke” hiring practices. After Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, a backlash led to OPM ordering agencies to fire probationary employees hired under this policy. Alsup’s ruling suggests this reversal was mishandled legally—likely because OPM lacked authority to dictate mass firings, or the process ignored employees’ rights.

In short, the firings were against the law because they likely stemmed from an unauthorized OPM directive, violated procedural protections, and/or lacked a lawful basis under federal statutes like the APA. Judge Alsup’s injunction reflects a finding that the agencies’ actions were, at least preliminarily, unjustified and illegal, pending further litigation. For the exact legal citations or reasoning, the full court opinion would be needed, but this aligns with standard principles of administrative and employment law.

@Grok
Click to expand...

Alsup said agencies have statutory authority to order Reductions in Force, or mass layoffs of federal employees,

Rehire and lay them all off!

Happy now
 
volsrocks said:
Alsup said agencies have statutory authority to order Reductions in Force, or mass layoffs of federal employees,

Rehire and lay them all off!

Happy now
Click to expand...
Surely rehiring them is not correct because they were never legally fired.

Fire them correctly tomorrow....pay them up to tomorrow.
 
Teflon Don said:
What will you do about it? Nothing? Thought so
Click to expand...
2frcsk.jpg
 
signalmankenneth said:
A federal judge on Thursday ordered federal agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees who were fired amid President Donald Trump’s turbulent effort to drastically shrink the federal bureaucracy.:good4u:

U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the mass firings as a “sham” strategy by the government’s central human resources office to sidestep legal requirements for reducing the federal workforce.

Alsup, a San Francisco-based appointee of President Bill Clinton, ordered the Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs departments to “immediately” offer all fired probationary employees their jobs back. The Office of Personnel Management, the judge said, had made an “unlawful” decision to terminate them.

And even if it is upheld on appeal, it does not guarantee that all the workers will be able to get their jobs back permanently: Alsup made clear that agencies still have the authority to implement “reductions in force,” as long as they follow the proper procedures for doing so. Federal agencies are currently finalizing “reduction in force” plans.

Alsup issued his ruling in a lawsuit brought by federal employee unions. He lashed out at the Justice Department over its handling of the case, saying he believes that Trump administration lawyers were hiding the facts about who directed the mass firings.

“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross examination would reveal the truth,” the judge said to a DOJ attorney during a hearing Thursday. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth. … I’m tired of seeing you stonewall on trying to get at the truth.”

Alsup also said the administration attempted to circumvent federal laws on reducing the workforce by attributing the firings to “performance” when that was not in fact the case. The judge called the move “a gimmick.”

“It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said.

More than 5,000 probationary workers for USDA had already won a reprieve last week when the chair of a federal civil service board ordered them reinstated for 45 days. But Alsup is the first federal judge to order the administration to broadly unwind the firing spree that has roiled the federal workforce during Trump’s first two months in office.

Alsup emphasized that he was not ruling that the government is unable to lay off personnel at federal agencies, but that the Trump administration was in such a hurry to do so that it shunted aside federal laws that dictate the procedures for a so-called RIF.

“The words that I give you today should not be taken that some wild-and-crazy judge in San Francisco said that an administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” Alsup said. “It can be done, if it’s done in accordance with the law.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tens-thousands-fired-federal-workers-163555218.html
View attachment 45693
Click to expand...
The judge can pound sand. He has on authority to order any such thing.

Even if the administration folded to this activist's wishes the workers would be fired again in short order so they are probably getting on with their lives.
 
ULTRA MAGA said:
The judge can pound sand. He has on authority to order any such thing.

Even if the administration folded to this activist's wishes the workers would be fired again in short order so they are probably getting on with their lives.
Click to expand...
I have provided two posts showing that the judge has the authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top