UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT (Federal Probationary Employees)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ^ | April 9, 2025 | UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[cgbg]

The Government now asks us to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction. Among other things, the Government argues that the States lack Article III standing to challenge the terminations and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, provides the exclusive means for review of personnel actions taken against federal employees....

The Government is likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Government is unlikely to recover the funds disbursed to reinstated probationary employees.

[cgbg]

This is the actual decision today.

The District Court has agreed with the administration's position that the plaintiffs in the Maryland case lack standing.

This is in accord with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on a similar CA case.

Probationary employees may now be fired.

Again.

[1Old Pro]

Probationary employees may now be fired.

Probationary employees may now stay fired.

[JewishRighter]

WINNING!!!

[Skwor]

It was not justiciable to begin with. The courts needs to be held accountable for their overreach and reigned in as to the limits of their constitutional authority under penalty of disbanding.

[cgbg]

Agreed—none of the plaintiffs had standing.

Imho this was a slam dunk case from day one.

As I have posted numerous times...to the extent that probationary federal employees had any right of action that would be at the Merit Protection Systems Board (MPSB) which was created in the 1970s to deal with these exact issues—and to keep them from clogging up the courts.

The only parties that have standing is fired individuals—at the MPSB.

[Political Junkie Too]

The District Circuit Court has agreed with the administration's position that the plaintiffs in the Maryland case lack standing.

Fixed it to indicate that the appellate court agreed with the administration, overturning the district court.

-PJ

[cgbg]

Thanks—agreed.

[WASCWatch]

The Circuit Court judges decided they don’t want to be “Bench Slapped” by the U.S. Supreme Court like the District Court Judge.

[Dr. Franklin]

This was a Reagan judge and a Trump judge agreeing with Trump, and one Biden judge dissenting. Looking at the composition of the court, Republican judges are outnumbered by Rat judges. I expect the panel's opinion to be overturned by the court en banc followed by an appeal by the administration to SCOTUS.

On the issue of standing, the dissent wrote:
"Next, as discussed in depth by the district court, the denial of this notice has, and will continue to, cause real harm with significant adverse effects. See Mem. Op. on prelim. inj. (D. ECF No. 125) at 10–16.3 Such adverse effects include, but are not limited to, an increase in unemployment benefits applications, an increase in the resources required to investigate this influx in unemployment benefits applications, additional financial and labor costs associated with the sudden strain placed on rapid response programs without advance notice, unanticipated loss of tax revenue, and the loss of support from federal employees who were working with various state agencies. See id. These harms, among others, plainly satisfy the concreteness requirement and thus provide the necessary grounds for Article III standing. See Dreher, 856 F.3d at 345."
The composition of this court pretty much guarantees that the dissent will be adopted by a majority of the court en banc/

[Mr.Unique]

Probationary employees may now be fired.

Now, just fire them, but don't make them sign saying it is for performance issues.

[cgbg]

At the end of the day the Supreme Court will rule “no standing”.

Probationary federal employees have individual standing before the MPSB and nowhere else. The courts did not want to be flooded with thousands of individual cases of fired federal employees. That is why the MPSB was created.

Lets dig a little deeper.

This court noted: “the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, provides the exclusive
means for review of personnel actions taken against federal employees.”

Lets look at that legislation.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASAM/legacy/files/Civil-Service-Reform-Act-1978.pdf

“Federal employees should receive appropriate protection through increasing the authority and powers of the Merit Systems Protection Board in processing hearings
and appeals affecting Federal employees”

---

Nobody else has standing anywhere except in the minds of crazy leftists.

[cgbg]

Btw—I follow federal employee discussion groups.

Even the hardest core lefties know what yesterday’s Supreme Court decision and today’s decision means.

The probationary employees understand now—without any doubt—that their sole standing is before the MSPB which means many/most of them are burnt toast.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Thanks for the accurate summary of the decision. Too many people think “win” or “lose” is the only thing that matters, but the actual decision tells you a lot more about how likely it is to be upheld, and especially how broad/narrow the decision actually is.

[cgbg]

Here is an article from Government Executive on this decision with additional details:

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/04/agencies-can-once-again-fire-all-probationary-employees-following-new-court-ruling/404419/

[Dr. Franklin]

Even the hardest core lefties know what yesterday’s Supreme Court decision and today’s decision means.

So yesterday, SCOTUS shut down Judge Alsup's injunction in a two paragraph ruling. In part, it noted, "This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction."
So nothing from SCOTUS prevents the Fourth Circuit en banc from reversing the panel, and the fact that one judge dissented insures that the full court will address the matter in due course.

The probationary employees understand now—without any doubt—that their sole standing is before the MSPB which means many/most of them are burnt toast.

This case is not about the rights of federal workers, but about the rights of the states, which by statute are entitled to 60 days notice before any reduction in force (RIF). If the court determines this was a RIF, then the states have a statutory right to something, which usually translates into standing. This case is political, so "standing" is subject to the political biases of the judges. Expect the full Fourth Circuit to reverse this and then its on to SCOUTS and Roberts and Amy Conehead will decide the matter.

[cgbg]

The Supreme Court is not going to declare this a “de facto RIF”—zero chance.

That is the wild wish list of crazy leftists—and even the leftists I follow on discussion groups are not buying that.

[Dr. Franklin]

The Supreme Court is not going to declare this a “de facto RIF”—zero chance.

Declaring things like “de facto RIF” is what judges do. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Amy Conehead don't always vote the way you want.

[cgbg]

The reason I am very confident about this is that there is a very long and boring history of law on federal employment.

The pattern is not an ideological one—it is that the courts do not want to get involved in federal personnel issues.

The statutes created one separate body for individual complaints, another body for union issues.

The Supreme Court has blessed that arrangement in the past.

More importantly they love it.

They do not want to get involved in this stuff.

They will wave the “standing” flag and then go home and relax.