By The Epoch Times | Created at 2025-03-17 22:25:27 | Updated at 2025-03-20 15:36:10
2 days ago
A majority of an appeals court panel says blocking a lower court’s order would ‘disrupt the status quo and turn it on its head.’
A federal appeals court on March 17 denied an attempt from President Donald Trump’s administration to block the reinstatement of thousands of newer federal government employees who had recently been fired.
A majority of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel said that blocking a lower court’s order would “disrupt the status quo and turn it on its head.”
U.S. Circuit Judges Ana de Alba and Barry Silverman formed the majority.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup on March 13 ordered six agencies, including the Department of Defense, to reinstate thousands of workers who had been fired because they were on probationary status and not deemed mission critical.
Trump administration lawyers lodged an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal.
“Chaos will ensue absent a stay, as employees who were lawfully terminated must be offered (and may well accept) reinstatement, only to potentially lose their jobs again if the district court’s order is vacated,” the lawyers told the appeals court.
Related Stories
They also said that the order will be vacated because, they said, the court decided wrongly on multiple issues, including whether unions that sued over the terminations have suffered an injury.
U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget S. Bade, the third judge on the Ninth Circuit panel, said she would have granted the government’s request.
“The government persuasively argues that the district court’s preliminary injunction order imposes a substantial administrative burden. That order requires the six agencies to offer reinstatement to thousands of terminated employees, who may accept and require onboarding, credentialing, and other human resources or administrative action,” she wrote.
Bade added later that keeping the order in place would cause additional confusion if it is later overturned.
“Plaintiffs do not contest these assertions. They argue that government services upon which they and their organizational members rely have been thrown into chaos by the terminations and that they will continue to be injured by the government’s inability to render services. But Plaintiffs offer no reason to believe that immediate offers of reinstatement would cure these harms. Instead, the administrative undertaking of immediately reinstating potentially thousands of employees would likely draw (already depleted) agency resources away from their designated service functions,” she said.
The denial of the emergency motion is not the end of the case. The appeals court will consider whether to issue a stay pending appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court, if asked by the Trump administration, could also weigh intervening and staying the order as the case proceeds.
