A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the mass firings of probationary employees were likely unlawful, offering temporary relief to a group of labor unions and organizations suing the Trump administration over its efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. The lawsuit challenges the authority of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in ordering the firings.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated that OPM had no legal authority to order the firing of probationary employees in other agencies, including at the Department of Defense. “OPM does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe,” he said.
This lawsuit, filed by five labor unions and five nonprofit organizations, is part of a broader pushback against the administration’s attempts to shrink the government workforce, which President Trump has repeatedly called bloated. Thousands of probationary employees have already been fired, and the administration is now targeting career officials with civil service protection.
Government lawyers agreed that OPM doesn’t have the authority to hire or fire employees at other agencies. However, they argued that OPM merely requested agencies to assess whether probationary employees were fit for continued employment. They also emphasized that probationary employees are not guaranteed jobs and should only be retained if they are top performers.
One of the government’s attorneys, Kelsey Helland, said, “I think plaintiffs are conflating a request by OPM with an order by OPM.”
The ruling was a win for the coalition of unions and nonprofits, though it doesn’t automatically mean that fired employees will be rehired or that future firings won’t happen. “What it means in practical effect is the agencies of the federal government should hear the court’s warning that that order was unlawful,” said Danielle Leonard, one of the attorneys representing the coalition.
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, celebrated the decision, calling it an important victory for those who were “illegally fired” by an agency that had no authority to do so. He pointed out that these were workers who had joined the federal government to serve their communities, only to be let go due to the administration’s approach to privatizing their jobs.
The ruling specifically applies to certain federal agencies represented by the five nonprofits involved in the lawsuit, including those serving veterans, parks, small businesses, and defense. Judge Alsup also expressed concern over the firings at the Department of Defense and ordered the acting head of OPM, Charles Ezell, to testify about a phone call in February, during which agency heads were instructed to fire probationary employees.
Alsup also criticized the way probationary employees were let go with a poor performance mark, calling them “the lifeblood of our government.” He emphasized that these workers are often younger employees who work their way up through federal service.
Probationary employees, who have been with their agencies for less than a year, are the focus of the firings. Around 200,000 probationary employees are currently in federal agencies, with about 15,000 in California, where they provide vital services like fire prevention and veterans’ care.
Elon Musk has been a key figure in overseeing the purge through the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. The personnel office even sent an email requiring workers to list their five most recent accomplishments or face possible termination, though it was later clarified that this request was voluntary.
The unions argue that many agencies mistakenly told workers the firings were directly ordered by OPM. For example, probationary employees at the National Science Foundation were informed that the agency planned to retain them, but OPM overruled that decision.
Unions have had mixed success with similar lawsuits. A D.C. judge recently rejected their request to block layoffs, saying the case should be heard in federal labor court. A judge in Massachusetts also dismissed a lawsuit over a deferred resignation offer, ruling the unions didn’t have standing to challenge it.
Alsup has noted that the unions likely lack legal standing, but the nonprofit organizations involved have a strong case, since their members will be directly affected by the loss of government services, such as access to parks, mental health care for veterans, and small business loans.
The judge, known for his blunt style, will issue a written order soon, and an evidentiary hearing is scheduled for March 13.
