Latest news with #U.S.Circuit
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court frees Trump administration to resume probationary employee firings
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from firing probationary workers, freeing the White House to fire thousands of federal workers. It blocks a ruling that protected probationary workers from being fired if they live or work in Washington, D.C., or the 19 states that sued over a Trump directive to fire government workers hired in the last year or two, depending on their agency. The 2-1 decision determined that the band of Democratic-led states likely do not have standing to sue over the directive, mimicking a Supreme Court ruling issued one day earlier in a separate challenge brought by that a coalition of government unions. Following both decisions, the Trump administration is no longer under any court order that requires the reinstatement of terminated probationary employees. U.S. Circuit Judges Allison Jones Rushing and J. Harvie Wilkinson III formed the 4th Circuit majority that sided with the administration. They were appointed by Trump and former President Reagan, respectively. In a dissenting opinion, however, Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, an appointee of former President Biden, said states could make the case they were impacted by the widespread firings, including through lost tax revenue and an expected increase in unemployment filings. The decision lifts an order from U.S. Circuit Judge James Bredar indefinitely barring the Trump administration from terminating thousands of probationary employees. He had declined to extend his order nationwide. Bredar had previously ordered officials to temporarily reinstate probationary employees fired at 18 agencies, no matter where they physically worked, but narrowed its application in his later ruling. The Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency have looked to make sweeping cuts to the federal bureaucracy, including mass terminations of federal employees in their probationary status. Bredar ruled the mass terminations constitute a 'reduction in force,' which requires notice and other procedures the Trump administration didn't follow. — Updated at 3:22 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court halts Trump independent agency firings, spurring Supreme Court battle
A federal appeals court flipped on President Trump's firings of two independent agency leaders, temporarily reinstating them Monday and likely setting up a battle at the Supreme Court. In a 7-4 vote, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wiped a ruling from a three-judge panel on the court that sided with the government late last month by greenlighting Trump's firings of Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Monday's ruling clears the way for Harris and Wilcox to return to their posts, for now, though the Trump administration could now file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. The cases are a key test of the Supreme Court's 90-year-old precedent that upheld removal restrictions for multimember independent agency boards, which has been recently narrowed. The D.C. Circuit majority emphasized it is for the Supreme Court to decide whether to overrule its own decision, but the lower courts must follow it until then. 'The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,' reads the court's unsigned ruling. Harris and Wilcox each sued the Trump administration after the president unceremoniously fired them from their posts, giving no reason for their terminations. The law says any firings must be justified by 'inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.' The Trump administration does not claim to have such justification and instead argues the removal protections are unconstitutional. The administration has further signaled they are prepared to ask the Supreme Court to overturn its key precedent allowing such protections, if needed. 'Only the Supreme Court can decide the dispute and, in my opinion, the sooner, the better,' U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush, wrote in dissent. Henderson dissented along with U.S. Circuit judges Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, all Trump appointees. The seven judges in the majority were meanwhile all appointed by Democratic presidents. 'Without considering the difficult questions regarding the scope of the court's equitable or legal authority, the en banc majority blesses the district court's unprecedented injunctions and purports to reinstate principal officers ousted by the President. In so doing, the majority threatens to send this court headlong into a clash with the Executive,' wrote Rao. The district court judges who oversaw Harris and Wilcox's cases deemed their firings unlawful. Lower judges have also deemed illegal Trump's firings of Susan Grundmann, the Democratic-appointed chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and Office of Special Counsel head Hampton Dellinger, though after an appeals court stayed his reinstatement, he dropped his challenge. Monday's ruling is only temporary. The case now returns to a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel to make a final ruling on the legality of the firings, but the Trump administration could meanwhile seek an immediate intervention from the Supreme Court on its emergency docket. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
